The Minnesota Senate Education Finance Committee on Feb. 11, 2025 heard an update on statewide implementation of the Read Act, a multi-year effort to shift K–12 literacy instruction toward structured literacy and to expand universal screening, teacher training and intervention supports.

State and local officials told the committee that the state has committed substantial funds and enrolled thousands of educators in approved training, but school districts, teachers and union leaders described practical obstacles — delayed materials, compressed timelines, uneven reimbursement and extra hours for already-burdened staff — and asked for clearer timelines and ongoing funding to sustain classroom coaching and intervention staffing.

The Read Act’s goals and funding

Assistant Commissioner Bobbie Burnham, Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Teaching and Learning at the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), told the committee that the Read Act moves the target for “reading well” earlier in instruction and embeds universal screening beginning in kindergarten, with required screening three times per year. Burnham said the department has completed many legislatively mandated start-up steps (regional literacy networks, screeners, curriculum review, local literacy-plan templates) and that districts will submit universal screening data in June 2025.

Senator Maquade, who helped lead the legislation, said the state has invested heavily in literacy implementation, calling the package “the first of the kind in the nation.” She told members the state has put “a hundred and $11,000,000” toward literacy and that, since April 2024, “more than $33,000,000 has been allocated to the Read Act with a 31.37 million additional million dollars going to teacher training,” while $35,000,000 was distributed to districts for curriculum-related allocations.

Training numbers, timelines and providers

Burnham reported large-scale training registration and rollout: 3,194 educators had completed required training as of June 2024, and “as of January of ’25, we have over 34,000 teachers currently registered to take the training,” she said. MDE described a two-phase timeline: Phase 1 cohorts are expected to complete training by June 30, 2026; Phase 2 by June 30, 2027. Paraeducator training is planned as two modules (four hours each) for a total of eight hours delivered by regional literacy networks.

District and educator experiences

District literacy leads and superintendents described mixed practical experiences. Sarah Peterson, K–12 literacy coordinator and literacy lead for Shakopee Public Schools, said teacher cohorts, instructional coaches and principals participating in the approved CORE program reported that the coursework was “high quality” and helped teachers apply structured-literacy techniques in MTSS frameworks.

Martie Fridgen, elementary music specialist and president of United Teachers of South Washington County, gave a different perspective on implementation logistics in a large district. Fridgen said the district required many non-classroom teachers to complete the coursework, reported inconsistent access to materials for one vendor (Carryall) — including substantial delays in receiving required print resources — and said the actual training hours exceeded earlier estimates (she reported Carryall’s estimate rose from about 48 hours to about 67 hours), creating calendar and compensation problems for staff.

Union and statewide educator perspective

Dr. Justin Killian, Education Minnesota, summarized teachers’ experience as a mix of progress and stress: teachers are “exhausted” and implementation is occurring while the profession is experiencing high burnout and turnover. He and other union leaders urged clarity on use of earlier state allocations set aside to compensate teachers for training time and said many districts had successfully negotiated stipends or embedded training into the workday (examples cited to the committee included local agreements reporting stipends of roughly $1,700, $600 plus lane changes, and $4,000 in various districts), while other districts were still negotiating local memoranda of understanding.

Curriculum, screening and interventions

MDE reported results from its curriculum review: highly aligned foundational curricula in use included UFLI (University of Florida Literacy Institute) and partially aligned materials such as Wonders. The agency said it is conducting a separate review of intervention materials and aims to require evidence-based interventions statewide for the 2025–26 school year, with districts to report interventions implemented beginning in fall 2026.

MDE also explained a proposed change to the Literacy Incentive Aid formula: the department outlined a revision from third-grade-MCA-based weighting to a budget-neutral formula based on poverty measures (percent of students directly certified for free and reduced-price lunch). MDE asserted that shifting to poverty-based weighting would better target resources to schools with the highest needs but presented both pros and cons for committee consideration.

Language immersion and assessment concerns

Multiple witnesses raised concerns about how the Read Act’s screening requirements affect dual-language immersion programs. Literacy leads and district staff said testing immersion students in English (and also in the partner language) can double the assessment time and consume literacy-block instructional minutes. Several witnesses asked MDE to add a dedicated section in the local literacy plan template for immersion programs so districts can explain balanced assessment systems and avoid unnecessary duplication of testing.

Special education, paraprofessionals and coaching needs

Witnesses repeatedly singled out special education teachers and paraprofessionals as groups needing extra support. Dr. Killian and others told the committee that special educators face document and workload pressures that make the Read Act’s training requirements a heavier lift for them, and literacy leads and superintendents requested sustained funding for site-based coaching and interventionists rather than 1-time purchases.

District budget impacts and requests for ongoing funding

Several district leaders described the tension between available funds and the staff time required for high-quality implementation. David Law, superintendent (Minnetonka Public Schools), told the committee his district has redirected internal funds to support implementation and received $450,000 in one-time state funds; he said current recurring funds are not sufficient to hire the level of in-class coaching and the curricular adoption (he estimated roughly $900,000 one-time for curricular materials in his district and cited multi-year budget pressures). District presenters asked the Legislature to consider ongoing allocations for coaching, interventionists and implementation supports.

Program approval and educator-preparation alignment

Michelle Sandler of the Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board (PELSB) summarized the board’s multiyear audit of teacher-education programs. PELSB reviewers found the elementary, early childhood and special-education reading standards (adopted in 2010 and 2013) generally align with the five components of reading and structured-literacy expectations, but the board is in an ongoing review cycle: programs that lacked sufficient syllabus-level documentation were asked for more evidence, and PELSB is developing a rubric and next steps to verify continued compliance and outcomes.

What the committee heard about next steps

Witnesses asked for clearer timelines and predictable material release schedules, more state-supported facilitation or regional delivery models for Phase 1 PD, continued and sustained funding for coaching and intervention positions, and an immersion-specific plan for screening. MDE told the committee it is analyzing submitted local literacy plans, tracking use of literacy incentive aid, vetting new Phase 2 training vendors and evaluating implementation data as the Read Act moves through its multiyear milestones.

The committee did not take formal votes during the hearing; members asked questions and encouraged follow-up on funding guidance, timelines and higher-education alignment. Several presenters offered to continue working with MDE and the Legislature on clarifying timelines and on options to relieve workload pressure for special-education staff and paraprofessionals.

Ending

Committee members said they will take the testimony under advisement and follow up in future meetings; the committee adjourned with plans for additional education-related updates.