Massachusetts Senate to Vote on Early Literacy Bill Next Week

The Massachusetts Senate plans to introduce a companion to the House-approved early literacy reform bill during the week of Jan. 26. 

The House passed its bill (H 4683) last October, introducing a broad effort to regulate early reading instruction amid what lawmakers are calling a growing literacy crisis. Several states have reformed early literacy education, focusing on the “science of reading,” focusing on explicit, systematic phonics instruction.

The Commonwealth Beacon reported that a Senate companion bill had been redrafted by the Joint Committee on Education in December (S 2855). This bill was then passed to the Senate Ways and Means Committee. Sens. Sal DiDomenico, Robyn Kennedy, Jason Lewis, and Pavel Payano voted favorably, while Sens. Patricia Jehlen and Patrick O'Connor reserved the right to vote.

This legislation comes as student reading performance in Massachusetts has declined in recent years. While Massachusetts continues to rank among national leaders in reading, MCAS data show that only about 42% of third-graders are meeting state expectations in English language arts. This percentage is significantly lower among students of color, low-income students, English language learners, and students with disabilities. Legislators say statewide help is needed to address these learning declines.

The House version of the bill would require K-3 literacy curricula to align with five components — phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension — include biannual screenings, and set standards for teacher preparation and professional development.

According to the Commonwealth Beacon, a central — and controversial — feature of the bill is its restriction on specific instructional methods. Curricula relying on “implicit or incidental” word-reading strategies, including visual memorization of whole words, guessing from context or pictures, such as the “three-cueing” approach, would be prohibited.

The Massachusetts Teachers Association and AFT Massachusetts have expressed concerns about curriculum mandates and reduced flexibility. Supporters of the bill, however, emphasize accountability, data reporting, funding opportunities, and the creation of a literacy-focused commission.

Critics, including teachers' unions, warn that the bill could undermine teacher professionalism and local control, potentially banning widely used effective practices. Instead, they advocate investing in reading specialists, smaller classes, and targeted instructional support.

AFT Massachusetts President Jessica Tang wrote to the Commonwealth Beacon that it is “concerning” that the House-approved bill “establishes a limited, blanket curriculum… Even more concerning is that it bans important, proven tools our educators currently use and use successfully, particularly with our English language learners and students with special needs.”