Massachusetts is poised to join more than 40 states in overhauling early reading instruction under a compromise literacy bill headed toward final votes this week.
Read more Raj Chetty’s prescription for reviving the American dream
House and Senate negotiators on Tuesday signed off on a final agreement (H 5511) that would establish statewide standards for evidence-based reading instruction in kindergarten through third grade, require universal literacy screening, expand teacher training requirements, and create new accountability measures designed to track districts’ compliance and student progress.
The compromise resolves two of the most closely watched disputes between the House and Senate versions of the legislation: whether to explicitly restrict the controversial “three-cueing” reading approach and whether to provide immediate state funding to help districts transition to new curricula.
The final bill adopts language aimed at limiting the use of three-cueing, a method that encourages students to identify unfamiliar words using context, sentence structure and picture clues. The compromise language prohibits approved K-3 literacy curricula from using “implicit or incidental instruction in word reading, visual memorization of whole words, or guessing from context and picture cues” as a substitute for identifying words.
Supporters view that provision as a direct response to decades of cognitive science research emphasizing systematic phonics and decoding instruction. Critics have argued that restrictions on three-cueing amount to a legislative intrusion into classroom instruction and could limit educators’ flexibility to use methods that work for certain students.
Rep. Ken Gordon, the Bedford Democrat who chaired House negotiators, said the legislation is not intended to prohibit illustrated books or classroom materials that include pictures.
“What this bill does is it basically bans the method of teaching kids by guessing, as opposed to slowing down and looking at the letters of the word,” Gordon said before signing the conference committee report. “Does it mean you can’t show a student a picture? Of course you can. Children’s books are always illustrated.”
Asked about the compromise language, lead Senate negotiator Sen. Sal DiDomenico of Everett said the conference committee sought to clarify that literacy instruction should not become “a guessing game.”
“We’re just trying to make sure that it’s evidence-based,” DiDomenico said. “We’re just trying to make sure that it’s not a guessing game for our students.”
The second major component of the compromise involves funding.
The Senate version included a $25 million transfer into a new Early Literacy Fund to help districts purchase curriculum materials and provide professional development. That appropriation was dropped during negotiations.
“It did not make it into the bill, but we fully expect that we will do some sort of funding in the future, either a supp or some other vehicle that we have going forward,” DiDomenico said Tuesday.
The compromise preserves the Early Literacy Fund itself, creating a mechanism through which future appropriations, grants and donations could be directed toward curriculum development, teacher training, implementation costs and district grants.
Both chambers plan to vote on the legislation this week, with a House formal session scheduled Wednesday and the Senate scheduled to meet Thursday. Lawmakers said Tuesday they expect final votes before sending the measure to Gov. Maura Healey for her review.
The legislation arrives as Massachusetts continues to confront declining literacy outcomes despite remaining among the nation’s highest-performing states academically.
The most recent publicly available MCAS results show only about 42% of Massachusetts third-graders currently meet state expectations in English language arts. Performance is significantly lower among students of color, low-income students, English language learners and students with disabilities.
DiDomenico described those disparities as creating a “tale of two states” in Massachusetts education.
“We have the number one test scores in the entire country in terms of education,” he said. “But when you look at the facts and the stats … I mean, 60% of our kids are not [at] benchmark.”
He said only about two in 10 students in some subgroups are reading proficiently by third grade.
“We also know that third grade reading level is a critical indicator of high school graduation rates, employment opportunities, incarceration rates,” DiDomenico said.
Read more New CCC chair flags internal operations as ‘critically important’
The legislation would require districts to adopt Department of Elementary and Secondary Education-approved literacy curricula by the 2027-2028 school year or obtain a waiver demonstrating that an alternative curriculum is evidence-based.
Approved curricula must include instruction in five research-based components of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.
DESE would be required to maintain a list of approved curricula and provide districts with a free statewide K-3 literacy curriculum. The department currently offers a curriculum through second grade and would be required to expand it through third grade.
The bill also establishes a waiver process allowing districts to continue using non-approved curricula if they can demonstrate effectiveness through scientific research and student outcomes. Waiver applications would be posted publicly and subject to state audits.
During consideration of the Senate bill, Sen. Jason Lewis said DESE estimated that about 118 districts serving roughly 81,000 students would not be in compliance with the proposal’s curriculum requirements and would need to adopt new early literacy curricula.
The compromise further requires districts to screen all K-3 students for reading ability at least twice each school year using approved literacy assessments. Schools would be required to notify parents within 30 days when students are found to be significantly below grade-level benchmarks and provide information about intervention plans.
Additional provisions codify dyslexia screening requirements, expand professional development opportunities for teachers and reading specialists, integrate literacy standards into educator preparation programs, and require annual public reporting on curriculum use and implementation.
The legislation has generated some of the most intense education-policy debate on Beacon Hill in recent years.
During hours of testimony before lawmakers last fall, literacy advocates, dyslexia organizations and parent groups argued that Massachusetts had fallen behind other states in adopting evidence-based reading instruction despite decades of research supporting systematic phonics approaches.
Organizations including the MassReads coalition and MassPotential pointed to data showing declining reading proficiency and argued that district-by-district discretion had produced inconsistent results.
“Only four in 10 Massachusetts students are reading at grade level,” MassPotential founder Mary Tamer told lawmakers during the debate. “Flexibility is not working.”
Teachers unions and some educators raised concerns about statewide curriculum mandates and restrictions on instructional practices.
Massachusetts Teachers Association President Max Page argued that legislatively prescribed curricula could undermine teacher professionalism and local decision-making.
AFT Massachusetts expressed support for portions of the legislation but warned against limiting instructional tools used by educators working with English learners and students with disabilities.
The debate frequently centered on three-cueing and balanced literacy approaches popularized by programs such as Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study. Supporters of science-of-reading reforms argue that encouraging students to rely on pictures and context clues can mask reading difficulties and prevent children from developing decoding skills. Defenders of balanced literacy approaches contend that opponents have oversimplified classroom practices and ignored the value of teacher judgment.
Massachusetts is far from alone in wrestling with those questions.
More than 40 states have enacted science-of-reading laws or related literacy reforms over the last decade, creating requirements around phonics instruction, literacy screening, curriculum standards and teacher preparation.
Gordon said Massachusetts cannot rely on its historic reputation for educational excellence while reading outcomes continue to stagnate.
“We’re now telling our districts that, in Massachusetts, we’re going to properly teach our young readers,” he said.
Read more SJC keeps recreational marijuana repeal in the mix for November
