Senate Education Committee hears hours of testimony on SB103 'Access Act' to require district plans for at‑risk students

At a Senate Education Committee hearing, sponsors introduced Senate Bill 103 — described in testimony as the "Access Act" — which would require school districts to adopt and publicly post policies explaining how they identify and serve students at risk of falling behind and to use evidence‑based, comprehensive interventions (including community schools) to direct existing at‑risk funds.

Senator Marchman, one of the prime sponsors, framed the bill around what he called "educational deserts, opportunity deserts and proficiency deserts," and urged earlier intervention. "These deserts don't wait for an accountability score. They exist now," Marchman said, arguing the bill would make proactive planning the norm rather than the exception.

A co‑sponsor outlined the bill's access provision, saying it would require districts to include an access plan in their Unified Improvement Plans so communities can see how districts identify at‑risk students and align supports. "This is a chance for you to get ahead and tell everybody your successes," the co‑sponsor said, adding that the bill would not demand line‑by‑line fiscal accounting of how every dollar is spent.

Support for the bill came from a broad coalition of educators and advocates. Mr. Badisha read testimony from Sochi Gatton, president of the Denver Public Schools Board of Education, saying the bill "provides a framework for school districts like ours to act intentionally" and urges transparency in directing resources to students who need them most. Liliana Velasquez El Valle, an early‑childhood educator, argued that investment in at‑risk students yields long‑term societal benefits: "Equity is not about treating everyone equally. It's about responding to the real needs of every student," she said.

Students and community representatives described how wraparound services and community‑school models help address nonacademic barriers that affect attendance and achievement. "We face overcrowded classrooms, a lack of wraparound services," said Matthew Pulido, a Denver high‑school sophomore, urging that limited funding reach students with the greatest needs.

Union and teacher association witnesses — including a retired educator from the American Federation of Teachers and a representative of the Colorado Education Association — endorsed the bill's emphasis on transparency and community‑based supports. The Denver Foundation told the committee SB103 builds on prior reforms to modernize how the state identifies at‑risk students and urged careful, equitable implementation.

Not all testimony was supportive. Nicholas Hernandez of the Charter School Institute said his organization opposed the bill as drafted but would withdraw opposition if a proposed amendment (L005/005) were adopted. Sarah Hunt, president of the Charter Advocacy Coalition, testified that the bill as introduced risks redundancy with existing authorizer contracts and Unified Improvement Plans and could undermine local control and school innovation. "Requiring a separate access policy duplicates efforts without adding meaningful value," she said.

Sponsors described several amendments they are working on: removing language that could be read to require additional funding, broadening the definition of acceptable interventions beyond an exclusive community‑school prescription, and moving the access policy requirement into existing Unified Improvement Plans. The sponsors said those changes are intended to provide flexibility for districts and avoid unintended fiscal consequences.

After hearing panels of in‑person and remote witnesses, the committee did not vote on SB103. Sponsors asked for time to refine amendments and the committee laid the bill over until April 1 for further drafting and consideration.

What's next: Bill sponsors will continue negotiations on amendments and return to the Senate Education Committee on April 1 for the next hearing phase.