HB 2138
In CommitteeHouse
Student performance
Improving student performance and success.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
The bill, called the Building Opportunities for Student Success (BOSS) Act, aims to improve early literacy and math outcomes by requiring structured literacy instruction in K–4, establishing grants for reading coaches, setting promotion standards for third-to-fourth grade based on reading skills, and updating teacher training and standards. It also mandates transparency through public data reporting and a review of math standards.
- Requires all public elementary schools to implement a 'structured literacy' program by the 2028–29 school year, using evidence-based methods aligned with the science of reading (including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension).
- Prohibits the use of the 'three-cueing' (MSV) reading instruction method in structured literacy programs.
- Establishes a 'Reading to Ensure Academic Development' (READ) grant program to fund reading coaches in high-need elementary schools, prioritizing schools with the highest percentages of students scoring 'basic' or 'below basic' on third-grade ELA assessments.
- Requires third-grade students to demonstrate reading proficiency (via state assessment, alternative assessment, or portfolio) to be promoted to fourth grade, with good-cause exemptions for English learners and students with disabilities.
- Mandates updated teacher endorsement standards and renewal requirements for educators with reading/literacy responsibilities, including completion of new structured literacy training by September 2029.
- Directs OSPI to compare Washington’s math standards to Singapore math and report to the legislature by December 31, 2026, on whether to adopt a similar approach.
- Requires OSPI to publish 10 years of longitudinal student performance data (proficiency, graduation, discipline, etc.) on its website, and to monitor and evaluate structured literacy programs.
Who is affected
- Public elementary schools — Elementary schools, especially those with high percentages of students scoring 'basic' or 'below basic' on third-grade English language arts assessments, will be eligible for grants to hire reading coaches and implement structured literacy programs.
- Teachers and educator preparation programs — Teachers and educators in kindergarten through fourth grade—including mentors, new educators, and those with reading/literacy endorsements—must complete new training and meet updated endorsement standards to support structured literacy instruction.
- Students in grades K–4, especially third graders — Third-grade students must meet specific reading benchmarks or participate in alternative pathways (e.g., portfolio review, alternative assessment) to be promoted to fourth grade, with exemptions for certain students (e.g., English learners, students with disabilities).
- State education agencies and regional support organizations — The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and Educational Service Districts (ESDs) will be responsible for developing training, disseminating resources, monitoring program compliance, and reporting outcomes.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The mandate for structured literacy—explicitly prohibiting the ineffective three-cueing method and requiring evidence-based, multisensory instruction—aligns with decades of reading science and is likely to significantly improve foundational literacy for K–4 students, especially those with dyslexia or from historically underserved backgrounds.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2); Sec. 5(1); Sec. 14(1); Sec. 17(1)(a)(i), (2)(a)(i)The $75,000-per-year-for-four-years READ grants (up to 125 awards) for reading coaches in high-need elementary schools directly targets students most at risk of falling behind, and the grant priority formula (based on % of students scoring basic/below basic) ensures resources go to districts and schools with the greatest need.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 4(1); Sec. 4(2); Sec. 5(1); Sec. 14(1); Sec. 17(1)(a)(i), (2)(a)(i)Mandating updated teacher endorsement standards and renewal training on structured literacy—backed by OSPI-developed, ESD-delivered training—will raise the quality of literacy instruction across the state, especially for new and mid-career teachers who were trained under outdated methods.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 8; Sec. 9; Sec. 10(1); Sec. 15(1)(a), (3)(a); Sec. 18(1)(c)The requirement that OSPI compare Washington’s math standards to Singapore math and report to the legislature by December 2026 creates a transparent, evidence-based pathway to potentially raise math rigor—though adoption is not mandated, the comparative analysis may inform future improvements.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 3; Sec. 17(2)(b)(iii)The 10-year longitudinal data publication and requirement to notify parents of below-grade-level reading and intervention options improve transparency and parental engagement—key drivers of student success—especially for families of color and low-income families who have historically had less access to such information.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1); Sec. 14(4); Sec. 16(2); Sec. 17(1)(a)(ii), (2)(a)(ii)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandatory third-grade retention based on reading scores may increase psychological stress, disengagement, and dropout risk for students—particularly those with disabilities, English learners, and students from low-income families—despite good-cause exemptions, because retention is associated with long-term academic harm when not paired with high-quality, sustained interventions.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 4(3)(a); Sec. 16(8), (9); Sec. 17(2)(b)(i), (ii)The requirement that all intensive reading interventions must meet the structured literacy standard by September 2028—without specifying a state-funded, scalable curriculum or guaranteeing sufficient trained personnel—creates implementation risk for districts with limited capacity, potentially widening disparities between high- and low-resource schools.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2); Sec. 16(3)(b); Sec. 17(1)(a)(ii), (2)(a)(ii)The requirement that parents consent to intensive reading strategies (e.g., summer school, retention) but also that schools must honor parental requests—even if education staff believe the strategy is inappropriate—may lead to suboptimal academic outcomes for students when parents lack expertise in literacy instruction or misinterpret their child’s needs.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(7); Sec. 16(5), (6); Sec. 17(1)(a)(ii), (2)(a)(ii)The bill does not provide dedicated funding for summer programs, tutoring, or extended learning time—only mandates that districts implement such strategies—potentially forcing districts to divert existing resources or leave struggling students without adequate support.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(7); Sec. 16(3)(b); Sec. 17(1)(a)(ii), (2)(a)(ii)The bill requires OSPI to publish 10 years of longitudinal data and mandates school-level data exclusions (e.g., for ELL students after 3 years, some students with IEPs), which could complicate local accountability and resource allocation decisions if data are incomplete or inconsistently reported across districts.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(1); Sec. 3; Sec. 14(4); Sec. 17(2)(b)(iii)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income families and students in high-poverty schools benefit most from the READ grants, structured literacy mandates, and early intervention requirements, as these directly target the resource gaps and literacy deficits that disproportionately affect their children.
Teachers and reading specialists gain new training, coaching support, and clearer standards—but face increased workload and accountability pressure. Those already trained in structured literacy benefit; others may struggle with the 2029 deadline.
School districts in high-need areas receive new funding and coaching support but must rapidly retrain staff and implement new interventions—potentially straining already tight budgets and leadership bandwidth.
Students with dyslexia and other reading-based learning differences are explicitly protected under good-cause exemptions and are the primary beneficiaries of the structured literacy mandate—potentially closing the achievement gap for this group.
English learners benefit from the exemption from retention until after three years in the program—but may be disadvantaged if districts interpret the exemption inconsistently or lack bilingual structured literacy resources.