Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

Michigan Senate Bill SB0376

Introduced
6/10/25  

Caption

Education: school districts; requirements related to the retention of certain grade 3 pupils; provide for. Amends sec. 1280f of 1976 PA 451 (MCL 380.1280f).

Summary

SB 376 would substantially revise Michigan’s early literacy and reading intervention requirements in the Revised School Code. It expands the state’s role in approving reading screeners and progress-monitoring tools, requires the Department of Education to develop and maintain dyslexia expertise, and directs the department to publish guidance, approved assessment lists, and evidence-based elementary reading curricula aligned with the science of reading. The bill also requires districts and public school academies to ensure that literacy coaches and other reading personnel receive specified professional learning on dyslexia, structured literacy, MTSS, and evidence-based interventions. The bill imposes new screening, intervention, and reporting obligations for pupils in kindergarten through grade 3, and in some cases grades 4 through 12. It requires universal screening for characteristics of dyslexia beginning in the 2027-2028 school year, mandates individual reading improvement plans and parent notification for pupils with reading deficiencies, and requires evidence-based, structured-literacy-based interventions and progress monitoring. It also adds requirements for English language learners, staffing plans when qualified teachers are unavailable, and annual reporting to CEPI on grade 3 retention and good-cause exemptions. Most notably, it creates a stronger grade 3 retention framework for pupils who are not proficient in reading, while preserving alternative pathways for promotion through approved assessments, portfolios, and good-cause exemptions.

Impact

SB 376 would amend section 1280f of the Revised School Code and would significantly expand state-mandated literacy screening, intervention, and accountability requirements for school districts, intermediate school districts, and public school academies. It would affect assessment selection, teacher and coach training, parent notification, reading intervention planning, dyslexia identification, MTSS implementation, and reporting to the state. The bill also would create new responsibilities for the Department of Education and CEPI, including publishing approved assessment and curriculum lists, maintaining dyslexia resources, providing technical assistance, and collecting retention data. Its practical effect would be to shift Michigan reading policy toward more prescriptive, science-of-reading-based instruction and earlier intervention, especially for K-3 pupils and students at risk for dyslexia or decoding difficulties.

Sentiment

The bill’s overall direction appears strongly supportive of early literacy intervention and reading proficiency, with an emphasis on structured literacy and dyslexia awareness. Although no committee transcript or recorded vote is provided here, the bill language itself reflects a policy approach that prioritizes stronger state oversight, more uniform screening, and more intensive intervention for struggling readers. The tone of the measure is generally reform-oriented and intervention-focused rather than punitive, even though it includes a more explicit retention requirement for some third graders.

Contention

The main points of contention likely involve the bill’s retention provisions, the degree of state prescription over curriculum and assessment choices, and the workload and staffing demands placed on districts. The bill restricts the use of instructional approaches that do not emphasize letter-sound decoding, which may be controversial among educators who favor broader or more flexible literacy methods. Districts may also object to the costs and implementation challenges of universal screening, coach training, reporting, and staffing plans, while supporters are likely to emphasize the need for earlier identification of dyslexia and stronger intervention for struggling readers. The retention requirement, even with good-cause exemptions and alternative promotion pathways, is likely to be the most politically sensitive feature.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.