Public schools; definitions, textbooks and other high-quality instructional materials.
HB2777 makes broad changes to Virginia’s public school laws to shift the state’s instructional-materials framework from “textbooks” to “textbooks and other high-quality instructional materials.” It expands and standardizes definitions for evidence-based literacy instruction, science-based reading research, and high-quality instructional materials, and it requires the Board of Education and local school boards to use those definitions in approving, adopting, and implementing curriculum materials. The bill also adds or strengthens requirements for literacy screening, reading intervention plans, professional development, and teacher-preparation coursework tied to science-based reading research, dyslexia, and inclusive instructional practices.
The bill also revises multiple Standards of Quality provisions affecting staffing, planning, assessments, and school/division accountability. It adds or clarifies requirements for reading specialists, special education and family liaisons, high-quality instructional materials liaisons, professional learning resources, and local literacy plans; it also updates rules for class sizes, remediation, career and technical education, and public reporting. In addition, it directs the Department of Education and the Board of Education to create and publish approved vendor lists and review processes for instructional materials, with phased deadlines through 2030.
HB2777 amends numerous sections of the Code of Virginia governing public education, especially Chapters 1 and 13 of Title 22.1 and one higher-education provision in Title 23.1. Its practical effect is to require state and local education agencies to align reading instruction, curriculum adoption, professional development, and teacher-preparation programs with evidence-based literacy practices and to adopt approved high-quality instructional materials in core subjects. It also creates new administrative duties for the Department and Board, including review/approval processes, public reporting, guidance documents, vendor lists, and implementation timelines, while affecting school staffing expectations, remediation services, and local planning requirements.
The bill appears to have been generally supported, but not unanimously. It moved through subcommittee, committee, the House, and conference with substantial majorities, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee votes and strong conference approval. However, the recorded House floor vote on passage was not unanimous, and a later Senate substitute was rejected by the House, indicating some disagreement over the final form of the legislation. Overall, the voting history suggests broad bipartisan acceptance of the bill’s goals, with some resistance to specific provisions or the substitute language.
The main points of contention appear to center on the scope and prescriptiveness of the state’s control over curriculum and instructional-material adoption, as well as the implementation burden on local school divisions. The bill requires local boards to adopt materials from state-approved lists or through regulated local processes, and it imposes detailed requirements for literacy plans, professional development, staffing, and reporting. Those provisions likely raised concerns about local flexibility, compliance costs, and timelines, especially given the phased implementation through 2030 and the need for the Department to build new review and approval systems. The House’s rejection of the Senate substitute suggests disagreement over the final balance between state oversight and local discretion.