SB 105 revises Kentucky law on dyslexia and dysgraphia in K-12 education and teacher preparation. It expands and updates the Department of Education’s dyslexia toolkit requirements, directing the department to provide guidance, technical assistance, and training for local districts on screening, identification, monitoring, evidence-based instruction, parent outreach, and progress monitoring for students in kindergarten through grade 3 who show characteristics of dyslexia or dysgraphia. The bill also requires annual review and updating of the toolkit and adds detailed guidance on universal screening, diagnostic tools, structured literacy, multisensory instruction, and multitiered systems of support.
The bill makes local district action more mandatory by changing several provisions from permissive to required. Local boards of education would be required to adopt policies addressing identification and intervention for young students with dyslexia, including parent notification, use of approved screeners and diagnostics, staff training, and ongoing monitoring. Districts would also be required to screen all students under existing screening law, use evidence-based interventions, and avoid the three-cueing system model of word reading. The bill further requires annual data reporting to the department beginning in 2028 for five years, covering the number of students identified, receiving interventions, and related progress-monitoring information.
SB 105 also updates teacher preparation requirements. By the 2027-2028 academic year, postsecondary teacher education programs for elementary and secondary regular education would have to include instruction on dyslexia, how to identify it, evidence-based interventions and accommodations, and response-to-intervention or multitiered support frameworks. This extends the bill’s reach beyond K-12 districts to educator training programs, aiming to ensure new teachers are prepared to recognize and respond to reading and writing difficulties.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of early literacy intervention, structured literacy, and evidence-based reading instruction. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s structure suggests a policy emphasis on standardizing dyslexia-related practices statewide and improving early identification and intervention.
The main points of potential contention are the increased mandates on school districts and teacher preparation programs, the required use of approved screening and diagnostic tools, and the explicit rejection of the three-cueing model. Districts may face implementation, training, and reporting burdens, and some educators or administrators could object to the prescriptive instructional approach or the costs of compliance. The bill also narrows local discretion by converting several “may” provisions into “shall” requirements, which could be a focal point for discussion.
SB 105 amends KRS 158.307 and KRS 164.304 to create more detailed statewide requirements for dyslexia identification, intervention, reporting, and teacher preparation. It would require the Department of Education to maintain and update a dyslexia toolkit, require local boards to adopt dyslexia policies, require districts to use evidence-based structured literacy interventions and approved screening tools, and require postsecondary teacher preparation programs to include dyslexia and response-to-intervention instruction. The bill would also add annual district reporting to the department beginning in 2028 for five years, affecting school districts, the Department of Education, and educator preparation institutions.
The available materials suggest a generally favorable policy direction centered on early literacy, dyslexia awareness, and evidence-based instruction. The bill appears designed to strengthen existing practices rather than create a new program from scratch, and its language reflects a strong commitment to structured literacy and early intervention. No votes or committee testimony are available, so there is no recorded public opposition or support in the provided context.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s mandatory requirements and instructional prescriptions. School districts may be concerned about the costs and staffing needed to implement universal screening, training, parent outreach, and annual reporting. Educator preparation programs may also need to revise curricula to meet the new requirements. Another possible point of dispute is the bill’s rejection of the three-cueing system model and its preference for structured literacy, which could draw debate from educators with different reading-instruction philosophies.