California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate Bipartisan · 7 D · 2 R cosponsors

SB 237 — Special education: dyslexia risk screening.

Last action — From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on ED.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop program guidelines for dyslexia to be used to assist regular education teachers, special education teachers, and parents to identify and assess pupils with dyslexia, as provided. Existing law requires a pupil who is assessed as being dyslexic and meets specified eligibility criteria to be entitled to special education and related services. This bill would require, on or before June 30, 2022, the State Board of Education to establish an approved list of evidence-based culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate screening instruments to be used by a local educational agency, as defined, to screen pupils for risk of dyslexia, as provided. The bill would require, beginning in the 2022–23 school year, and annually thereafter, a local educational agency serving pupils in any of the grades kindergarten to grade 2, inclusive, to screen each pupil in those grades for risk of dyslexia by using the screening instrument or instruments identified above, as provided. The bill would also require, during the 2022–23 school year, a local educational agency serving pupils in grade 3 to screen each pupil. The bill would require results from the screening, among other things, to be made available to a pupil's parent or guardian in a timely manner, but no more than 45 calendar days from administering the screening. The bill would require a local educational agency to provide a pupil identified as being at risk for dyslexia with appropriate instruction, progress monitoring, and early intervention in the regular general education program. By expanding the duties of a local educational agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on ED.

  2. Referred to Com. on ED.

  3. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  4. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 1349.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  5. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  6. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  7. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 1184.) (May 20).

  9. Set for hearing May 20.

  10. March 22 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.

  11. Set for hearing March 22.

  12. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 667.) (March 10). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  13. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on ED.

  14. Set for hearing March 10.

  15. Referred to Com. on ED.

  16. From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 21.

  17. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 16 co-sponsors · 105 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Portantino

Co-sponsors (16)

Not signed on (105)

105 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 105 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Special Consent SB237

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 13000
Unaffiliated 22001
Republican 4000
Total 39001
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Glazer — Yea
Roth — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Bates — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Min — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Newman — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Pan — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Melendez — Not Voting
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5000
Republican 1000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Bates — Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 1000
Unaffiliated 5000
Republican 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Portantino — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Bates — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

education
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 237 do?
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop program guidelines for dyslexia to be used to assist regular education teachers, special education teachers, and parents to identify and assess pupils with dyslexia, as provided. Existing law requires a pupil who is assessed as being dyslexic and meets specified eligibility criteria to be entitled to special education and related services. This bill would require, on or before June 30, 2022, the State Board of Education to establish an approved list of evidence-based culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate screening instruments to be used by a local educational agency, as defined, to screen pupils for risk of dyslexia, as provided. The bill would require, beginning in the 2022–23 school year, and annually thereafter, a local educational agency serving pupils in any of the grades kindergarten to grade 2, inclusive, to screen each pupil in those grades for risk of dyslexia by using the screening instrument or instruments identified above, as provided. The bill would also require, during the 2022–23 school year, a local educational agency serving pupils in grade 3 to screen each pupil. The bill would require results from the screening, among other things, to be made available to a pupil's parent or guardian in a timely manner, but no more than 45 calendar days from administering the screening. The bill would require a local educational agency to provide a pupil identified as being at risk for dyslexia with appropriate instruction, progress monitoring, and early intervention in the regular general education program. By expanding the duties of a local educational agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors SB 237?
SB 237 is sponsored by Portantino, Cortese, Dave (Democratic), Dodd, Hueso, Limón, Monique (Democratic), Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie (Republican), Umberg, Thomas J. (Democratic), Wiener, Scott D. (Democratic), Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca (Democratic), Chiu, Gabriel, Jesse (Democratic), Holden, Mathis, Rubio, Blanca E. (Democratic), Villapudua, Dahle, Megan (Republican), and Luz Rivas.
What is the current status of SB 237?
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 237?
Track SB 237 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 237

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 237

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →