Copyright The Boston Globe
Mariano aide Max Ratner declined Monday to say whether the literacy bill will be on the agenda for a formal session in the House on Wednesday. It was sent Monday to House Ways and Means, which sometimes releases key bills in the hours leading up to formal sessions. The legislation would require districts to adopt literacy curricula backed by scientific research, focusing on kindergarten through third grade. It establishes reporting requirements, professional development for teachers and new standards for educator preparation programs. Under the legislation, the commissioner of education would regularly evaluate teacher preparation programs based on program quality, candidate outcomes and evidence-based reading instruction. The commissioner would annually publish annual data on program performance. The legislation mandates that all K-3 students be screened at least twice a year using approved literacy tools, with parental notification and intervention for individual students below benchmarks tied to “age-typical development in specific literary skills.” It also creates a two-year paid teacher apprenticeship pilot in high-needs districts and orders a statewide study on incentives to recruit and retain diverse and effective educators in those schools. The push comes amid what state officials have called a literacy crisis. The most recent MCAS exam data show that only about 42% of third-graders are meeting foundational reading expectations, with lower scores among students of color and those from low-income families. A 2024 MassINC poll found 84% of Massachusetts parents support requiring schools to use research-backed reading curricula. Supporters of creating statewide literacy standards say it would bring instruction in line with decades of cognitive science research pointing to systematic phonics, explicit decoding and structured literacy as key to early reading success. They argue that many districts still use “balanced literacy” programs that rely on cueing strategies, which involves teaching early readers to use context clues for words they don’t know instead of sounding out words. Some researchers say these balanced literacy programs are less effective. But the debate is far from settled. Critics warn that statewide curriculum mandates could undercut local control, impose costly transitions on already strained districts, and narrow teacher flexibility to respond to individual students’ needs. Others have raised concerns about ensuring cultural responsiveness while standardizing instructional methods. The bill specifically says curricula used in schools must “include instruction in the five research-based areas in reading instruction, i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension — including oral reading/communication skills, and reading comprehension... and and be based upon scientifically-based reading standards.” It adds, “curricula selected to meet the curriculum frameworks may not include implicit and incidental instruction in word reading, visual memorization of whole words, guessing from context, and picture cues, which may also be known as MSV or three-cueing.” The bill received its public hearing in September, where there was several hours worth of passionate testimony both in favor and against the bill. “Only four in 10 third grade students are reading at grade level,” Sena said during the hearing. “This is down 20% from pandemic levels. The number paints a particularly dire picture when broken down by demographic. For example, 27% of Black students are reading at grade level. 22% of Latino students are meeting ELA expectations, 24% of low income students, 14% of students with disabilities and 10% of English language learners.” One of the bills’ strongest opponents is the Massachusetts Teachers Association. “Having the Legislature dictate a particular curriculum and a particular mode is really dangerous and problematic and undermines the kind of professionalism of our educators who are working with a diverse student body trying to address their needs as best as possible,” MTA President Max Page said at the hearing. Page objected to language in the bill barring teachers from using certain reading instruction in their classrooms. Sen. Sal DiDomenico, who filed the companion bill (S 338) in the Senate, challenged MTA leaders, arguing that the state had to intervene because literacy levels among students have reached a crisis, requiring a change in approach. “The data here shows clearly that what is happening today is not working for our students,” he said. “What we’re saying is — pick a curriculum that does have a framework, but that’s just evidence-based, and we’re going to disagree. We’re going to disagree. I can see where we’re going here. But I just wanted to point that out, because the results have not borne, the results are not there, according to what we hope to see from our students.” Page responded that he agreed “no one is satisfied” with students’ literacy results, but believes the state should instead invest more in reading specialists and resources, rather than dictate classroom teaching. Over the past year, the state has invested tens of millions of dollars in reading materials and teacher training through an initiative called “Literacy Launch.” If passed, Massachusetts would join a growing number of states reshaping early reading instruction through legislation aligned with the “science of reading.”
