Bill to audit teacher-prep literacy training wins cautious interest; higher‑ed seeks alignment with existing reviews

Representative Kristen Noble told the committee HB 1828 would direct the Department of Education to develop an audit for postsecondary educator-preparation programs focused on literacy. "The audit would look at two things: that applicable educators are completing coursework in evidence-based literacy instruction aligned to the science of reading, and that clinical preparation is happening in classrooms where the practicing teacher is trained in literacy instruction strategies aligned to the science of reading," she said.

University System speakers — Lauren Banker (government-relations director) and Andrew Coppins (chair, UNH Education Department) — said institutions were neutral but asked that the audit be folded into existing review cycles. Coppins described two existing review cycles: a seven‑year full program review and an annual interim report, and he said the literacy content in HB 1828 could be accommodated in existing processes to avoid adding administrative burden.

Tim Lennan, the state advocate for special education, supported the bill’s emphasis on literacy training, noting a high share of assistance requests to his office relate to reading services and a shortage of appropriately trained providers. "We do need providers that have these evidence‑based strategies and a little bit more training," he told the committee, citing private-provider costs as evidence of scarcity.

Steve Applebee of the Department of Education outlined current oversight: the state board approves educator-preparation programs using Council for Teacher Education reviews, with full reviews on a seven-year cycle and annual reporting in between. He said the department can likely incorporate literacy checks into existing reviews and noted current licensing requirements include a foundations-of-reading exam for initial licensure.

What happens next: sponsors and the department will work on drafting to align the bill with existing institutional review processes and minimize duplicative reporting while preserving the audit’s emphasis on evidence‑based literacy preparation.