Read Act interventions modified.
HF3645 modifies Minnesota’s Read Act intervention requirements for students who are not reading at grade level. The bill directs school districts to provide reading intervention for identified students until they reach grade level, encourages use of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), and emphasizes family engagement, collaboration with community programs, and evidence-based instruction focused on foundational reading skills such as phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, fluency, and oral language. It also allows interventions to include summer school, intensified instruction, extended-day programs, and culturally connected programming.
The bill requires districts and charter schools to provide a personal learning plan for students who do not demonstrate grade-level proficiency on the grade 3 statewide reading assessment or an approved screener. Those plans must be developed with educators and parents or guardians, include targeted evidence-based instruction and progress monitoring, and remain in place until the student reads at grade level. The bill also states that grade retention may be included only if it is in the student’s best interest and may not be used solely because of literacy delays; students with an individualized education program are excluded from this requirement. Beginning in the 2025-2026 school year, districts must use only evidence-based literacy interventions, and beginning in 2026-2027, Tier 2 literacy interventions delivered by paraprofessionals, volunteers, or other unlicensed staff must be supervised by a properly trained licensed teacher.
HF3645 would amend Minnesota Statutes section 120B.12, subdivision 3, by tightening and clarifying district obligations for reading intervention under the Read Act. It increases the emphasis on evidence-based literacy practices, formal personal learning plans, parent consultation, and ongoing monitoring for students below grade level, while also setting future compliance dates for intervention materials and staff supervision requirements. The bill would affect school districts, charter schools, teachers, paraprofessionals, volunteers, students identified for reading intervention, and families, and it would further standardize how literacy supports are delivered across the state.
The bill appears generally supportive of stronger literacy intervention and aligns with the broader Read Act framework, with no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials indicating opposition or support. Its tone is prescriptive and implementation-focused, suggesting a policy goal of improving reading outcomes through more structured, evidence-based school practices. Because no committee discussion or vote history is included, the available record does not show a divided debate or formal partisan split.
The main potential points of contention are the bill’s increased mandates on districts and schools, including the requirement to use only evidence-based interventions, the need for trained licensed supervision of unlicensed staff, and the expanded use of personal learning plans. Schools may view these provisions as adding staffing, training, and administrative burdens, while supporters are likely to argue they are necessary to improve literacy outcomes and ensure consistent implementation of the Read Act. Another possible area of debate is the bill’s treatment of grade retention, which permits retention only when it is in the student’s best interest and bars retention solely for literacy delays.