[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6050016,"mediaKeyId","3506299-3d1595f0a7aa75c17ad93c61dc9cc8f4","parentId",3506299,"title","Committee approves universal dyslexia screening bill after broad testimony from students, educators and parents","audioSeconds",4714,"startMs",3336000,"endMs",8050000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3506299-3d1595f0a7aa75c17ad93c61dc9cc8f4&start=3336&end=8050","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3506299-3d1595f0a7aa75c17ad93c61dc9cc8f4/thumbnail_3336000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6050016/Colorado/Committee-approves-universal-dyslexia-screening-bill-after-broad-testimony-from-students-educators-and-parents","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6050016-19c7a4a40f000dc445660854d9574135/orig.mp4?Expires=1770982096&Signature=VklTPdSoLzXupHpfKi6pykNAwPSghwYo2RyYHhf64xg09vPoV1hYWpcB3v-ZXInzdPL8C1g8v4QTr2FeWTQwg9xx8Nad0gvbhlubXkl0BlUcDCrChjdbawCwwPFnD5ELOyw6sDJUnJwcFWnfxpNeCB6JeYicV~YaZXDnSHb~imxr5ecVkcmCiulDA0UNfnBM-EJ~OBv5ktNSvOD7cuP9J8a4hwpvNFzHXyv22wxa9BbDbarVLevXmad2mgEwyzwWCnEJChE9X6asmHWu1tMF56qVXvFpngCow~Nj4PLEIBlcnKfv2bM7Qrp9p6EPjbBhcKeGSB7Rz2A-oim4wypdKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Colorado State Legislature","date","2025-04-16T00:00:00Z","article","Co‑prime sponsors Representative Soper and Representative Hamrick presented Senate Bill 200 to the House Education Committee as legislation to require universal dyslexia screening for students in kindergarten through third grade and to clarify related Read Act requirements.

Sponsors framed the bill as an early‑intervention measure. Rep. Soper described personal experience with dyslexia and cited studies and statistics she and the committee heard: research that roughly one in five students shows characteristics of dyslexia, gaps in current identification, and the long‑term costs of missed early intervention. Rep. Hamrick laid out the bill’s mechanics: the bill requires local education providers to adopt or develop a dyslexia screener that meets standards of validity and efficiency, to allow teachers to use a full body of evidence when identifying reading difficulties, and to provide clear, accessible information to families when a child shows characteristics of dyslexia.

The committee heard testimony from many students, parents, educators and experts. Students and parents testified that late identification left children with years of trauma, lost confidence and costly private interventions; several testified that timely, multisensory Orton‑Gillingham‑style instruction had substantially improved outcomes. Nonprofit and district witnesses (including representatives of the International Dyslexia Association, Vertical Skills Academy, CoKid Colorado and Boulder Valley School District) said universal screening is feasible, that several validated screeners exist (DIBELS‑8 and other interim assessments were discussed), and that early screening does not necessarily drive large increases in special‑education referrals if schools address needs within general education and targeted interventions.

Committee members asked detailed implementation questions: which assessments meet the statutory standard, vendor availability, how districts will pay for assessments and teacher training, and whether screening would spike special‑education caseloads. CDE staff (Joanna Bruno) testified that interim and diagnostic assessments approved under the Read Act can include measures for dyslexia risk factors; she said CDE had five approved interim assessments and 14 approved diagnostic assessments on the Read Act list, that some assessments include dyslexia indicators but that not all districts had turned those measures on, and that about 75% of K‑3 students already have access to a screener in one form or another. Witnesses and the bill sponsors referenced Read Act funding, ELG/ELAP grants and training resources as existing means to support implementation and teacher training.

Sponsors offered an amendment (L006) to push the statutory implementation date for universal screening back one school year (from 2026‑27 to 2027‑28). Committee debate showed some members wanted a longer on‑ramp to allow rural districts and bargaining units time to plan; others (and many witnesses) pressed for the earliest practicable schedule so children do not continue to be missed. The amendment L006 failed on final voice/roll call. The committee then voted to move the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; the roll call passed 12 to 1.

Votes at a glance: Amendment L006 (delay implementation from 2026‑27 to 2027‑28) — moved and seconded, failed; Final motion to recommend SB 200 favorably to the Committee of the Whole — passed 12 to 1.

Committee members who spoke on the record encouraged further work on implementation details but many expressed support for universal screening and early intervention. Sponsors and witnesses urged the committee and districts to use existing Read Act funds, ELG grants and vendor training offerings to implement screenings and to prioritize early identification in kindergarten through third grade.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Education [Apr 16, 2025]","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 200, requiring universal dyslexia screening and clarified Read Act requirements for kindergarten through third grade, passed the House Education Committee 12–1 after extensive testimony from students, parents, school officials and dyslexia advocates.","taxTitle","Education, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Colorado","taxId",43263,"location","Colorado","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},6050019,"Committee debates, then rejects school seclusion bill after amendments clarify monitored seclusion",1168,2138000,3306000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3506299-3d1595f0a7aa75c17ad93c61dc9cc8f4&start=2138&end=3306","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3506299-3d1595f0a7aa75c17ad93c61dc9cc8f4/thumbnail_2138000.jpg","/articles/6050019/Colorado/Committee-debates-then-rejects-school-seclusion-bill-after-amendments-clarify-monitored-seclusion","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6050019-5d46d880b64ef1f7864e63e37fd4c32c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770982096&Signature=kGUgvAyCYzICdRNQ6Hd8aSNHL9EQ-94SLmdmZl-ivYFHOndPqr2LS2bp9XVn9oSwJ187WEannLH6egp5y3BK1XdNB1c~3N-g-pfD8L5sh~s-wSbq~T8wlVHRF6ouXqyA8hYuvVYoeiYRDNRevokFote3YdZiveMGbwOYwBA~aQJGb5m1zIeJSbgOYBZg8rmbB9Lgym-llr4gbfXsfxKvWPC0nUwmg7PZNR51-JfF-mYqlepwnegjoqMsOIFrhvvicWd8trhi41QehJifVKFlGh8FaO5MYx7rjOgwJOxJbmflKfqXmzq2sj05RQgP9AC-0~59pAb4c9QtAjdMfZhAxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative English brought a strike‑below version of House Bill 11‑78 to the House Education Committee and led the amendment phase that reworked the bill’s definitions and reporting requirements for seclusion in schools.

The committee adopted two amendments on the floor of the committee: L6, which struck a definition passage, and L7, which added a statutory definition of “monitored seclusion” as “an adult’s observation of a student in a space or room through a window or via live video.” Representative English said those changes were intended to reflect stakeholder conversations and to tighten reporting and notification timelines so parents would be informed “by the end of the school day” if monitored seclusion had been used.

During committee discussion members pressed for clarity on the text that requires spaces used for monitored seclusion to be “free of any item with the potential to inflict injury” and on whether doorways or objects could be construed to block egress. Representative English and other members explained the draft mirrors existing CDE administrative rules on seclusion and restraint and that the strike‑below moves some of those rule elements into statute to create clearer obligations for districts.

Committee members also asked about stakeholder outreach. English said she had circulated the strike‑below to groups including CASE and CASB; she reported that several stayed in opposition to an earlier full ban but that the strike‑below represented a narrowed proposal. Members noted the Colorado Education Association wanted an additional employee‑protections amendment (discussed during the hearing) to protect staff who refuse directives to seclude students; Representative English said she planned to amend that language back in if the bill advanced.

The committee voted on a motion to recommend House Bill 11‑78, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The roll call vote failed 2 to 11. Committee staff then announced a motion to postpone the bill indefinitely by reversing the prior roll call; members indicated no objection and the bill was postponed indefinitely.

The debate threaded two clear strands: sponsors and some members sought tighter statutory definitions and reporting to prevent the kind of underreporting families and witnesses described in prior testimony; other members said they supported the policy goals but needed more stakeholder consensus and time to agree on statutory text. Several members urged a broader, longer study of the practice and its alternatives before moving a statutory change into law.

Votes at a glance: L6 (amendment to strike a definition) — adopted by voice; L7 (definition of monitored seclusion) — adopted by voice; L5 as amended (strike‑below) — adopted by voice in committee; Motion to recommend bill to Committee of the Whole — failed 2 to 11; Motion to postpone indefinitely by reversing the roll call — adopted (no objection reported).","The House Education Committee amended House Bill 11-78 to define “monitored seclusion” and tighten reporting but voted 2-11 to send the bill to the Committee of the Whole; the bill was then postponed indefinitely by reverse roll call.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee approves universal dyslexia screening bill after broad testimony from students, educators and parents

Committee debates, then rejects school seclusion bill after amendments clarify monitored seclusion