Legislative adjustments to Connecticut’s Right to Read law are unlikely to come this session, according to comments made by Rep. Jeff Currey, D-East Hartford, during a recent meeting of the Cheshire Board of Education.

Currey chairs the legislature’s Education Committee and appeared before Cheshire’s Board of Education to speak about the continuing fallout from the Connecticut State Department of Education’s (CSDE) denial of 75 percent of waiver applications for the Right to Read law. Cheshire received a “limited” waiver result, which means the district’s existing reading curriculum was not approved and did not sufficiently demonstrate it was evidence-based and scientifically proven. Under the Right to Read law, passed as part of the 2021 budget implementer, Cheshire and other districts that did not receive a waiver must use a reading program for kindergarten through grade three education approved by CSDE when the law is fully implemented in 2025.

The department’s denial of waivers has sparked controversy in many districts, some of whom were denied waiver requests despite above average reading proficiency. Among those districts is Cheshire, which Superintendent Jefferey Solan noted in an email sent to parents in January this year, had the seventh-highest reading scores in the state.

At the February 15 Cheshire Board of Education meeting, Currey spoke about the history of the Right to Read legislation and the rollout of the waiver application process and also took questions from board members. Currey noted that CSDE brought in a third party, the Public Consulting Group, to review the waivers, and suggested he personally did not believe this was the best decision.

“Do I, Jeff Currey, myself, believe that this was likely the best thing to do? Probably not because I think while there were good intentions of trying to make a neutral process and kind of not have it be seen as any sort of biases, that they brought in folks to help create a rubric that the districts were then provided to then provide their information to these folks for review.” Currey said, noting that some districts provided much more information in their applications than others. He also added that he believed this showed that if the waiver process had been “a little tightened” there would not have been as much discrepancy between information provided.

Currey also pointed to meetings districts held with the CSDE, where they were given half an hour to talk about the application they had selected, as another part of the process that had caused problems. He noted that if a district had done something to their reading program in between the meeting and the time they had submitted their application, they were unable to discuss it, even if they had selected one of the programs approved by the CSDE.

Currey also announced that the Education Committee had met the previous day, February 14, with CSDE, and they had provided “what they deem as the most appropriate path forward.” He added that CSDE had shown some confusion or hesitation in moving forward because they did not believe the legislature had provided them language to create an appeals process in the Right to Read law and needed it to move forward. Currey also stated that the department later decided that a portion of the bill detailing technical assistance that would be provided to districts whose waiver applications were not approved “gave them the ability to outline a path forward without needing legislation.”

Currey also detailed what the path forward for districts that received either a transitional or limited waiver determination.

“What’s going to happen most likely is that districts are going to have the opportunity to spend some time with our friends at the state department of education and to fully go through the programs, the models, and the curricula that you are using and to be able to explain to the [CSDE] why what you are using is actually aligned to the science of reading, which you have tried to defend in the waiver application that you originally submitted.” Currey said, adding that the process would likely begin within the next week.

Solan expressed frustration with how the data districts were asked to submit was handled. Earlier in the meeting, Currey stated that performance metrics were never part of the conversation during the waiver determination process.

“The one thing I think for us that was a little confusing that was in the legislation and in the waiver process we were asked to submit data. And so we were able to demonstrate that we were systemically closing the gap for high-needs students, students of color with the rest of our readers and that’s something we’re really proud of and I think it was a little frustrating for us to be asked for that data and then not have it considered.” Solan said, adding that the district is now looking to move forward.

Board member Adam Grippo asked Currey about who will be overseeing the resolution of the waiver process going forward, asking if the legislature was planning on committing to do more oversight of CSDE.

Currey said that the Education Committee is not currently planning to address the waivers through legislation.

“We are waiting to see what that guidance and that direction looks like in writing from [CSDE] out to the districts. Once we do see that then we’ll have an additional conversation, most likely centered around the push out of that implementation date to provide folks enough times to have those conversations they need to have.” Currey stated.

Earlier this month, Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Cheshire, who was in attendance at the meeting, sent a letter to the Education Committee asking them to raise a bill this session that would require the CSDE to automatically approve waiver applications from districts with above average reading performance. Currey did not return a request for comment about whether the committee would raise such a bill.

Sampson told Inside Investigator that he was seeking the bill because he thought it would be an “easier lift” than something broader. His letter has 20 co-signers, all of whom are Republican legislators. Sampson stated that he also had phone calls with Democratic lawmakers who were interested in signing the bill but ultimately didn’t. He said he suspected this was the result of someone in the Democratic leadership telling them to stay away from the Right to Read law this session.

Sampson characterized Currey’s comments at the Cheshire Board of Education meeting as giving the town a “chance to work harder to comply” with the law and obtain a waiver approval. He also added that he wonders if the high rate of waiver denials has something to do with third parties providing the curricula approved by the CSDE.

Sampson also sat in on a Zoom call members of the Cheshire Board of Education had with the CSDE about their waiver. He said they were asked by officials about different parts of their application and had complete answers and documentation to back up their reading curriculum but were dismissed at every turn by state officials. Sampson characterized the CSDE’s response as “finding excuses” to say the town wasn’t eligible. He also noted that complying with the Right to Read law was likely to cost the town somewhere between $600,000 to $700,000.

While Board of Education members seemed satisfied with Currey’s answers at the February 15 meeting about the waiver process moving forward, Sampson did not agree and rose to speak during the public comment period.

“What I heard tonight from Representative Currey is that there will be no change. That the only thing that is different is that SDE will come up with the next set of hoops and they will make the next determination of what has to be done. And to sit and think that somehow it’s a good idea that you get a 30-minute opportunity to defend yourself or that it’s going to be a collaborative process but at the end they get to say whether you’re approved or not is unacceptable.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.