There are currently two bills before the Massachusetts Senate that, as currently drafted, would mandate the use of specific literacy curricula and restrict educators from implementing effective practices. The Senate Committee on Ways and Means is considering H.4683 and Senators on the Joint Committee on Education are considering S.338.

Both bills undermine the longtime principle of local districts being able to choose curricula that is aligned with our widely respected curriculum frameworks and instead allow the state to mandate the use of specific curricula in school districts. The bills also erroneously present certain components of reading instruction as if they are exhaustive and universally applicable to all students. They seek to prohibit activities or lesson plans that include strategies that classroom educators and leading scholars of reading have found can be important tools in providing the highest quality of instruction that meets the unique learning needs of each student.

As one example, using “picture cues” could be one part of a holistic, effective and phonics-rooted instructional approach for certain students, particularly multilingual learners, but it would be explicitly prohibited in instruction under S.338 as currently drafted. As another example, both bills prohibit any “visual memorization of whole words,” which for educators is a clear reference to so-called “sight words.” These are words that may not follow regular phonetic rules but that appear in texts with high frequency, such as the word “was.” Recognizing such a high-frequency word is essential for reading comprehension and it could be helpful for certain students to memorize it as a supplement to their systematic phonics instruction. Yet, if this legislation is enacted as drafted, educators could be violating state law if they are considered to be encouraging even just one student to memorize a whole word as a supplemental piece of their overall literacy instruction.

We know, as educators, that approaches to literacy instruction that restrict educators and districts are not the answer to addressing gaps in reading and literacy skills. Legislating in a specific manner how educators must teach and how students must learn is deeply problematic given that education is not static, and in this instance, doing so could deny many students access to the literacy instruction that could most effectively help them. Curriculum and instructional decisions should be made at the local level where districts know best the needs of their students.

Educators have also been clear that what we need to support our students most effectively are more resources, including funds for districts to hire more reading specialists, librarians and other educators. H.4683 takes some steps toward that goal and it is critical that those provisions are included in any legislation related to student literacy.

We need your help in urging senators to listen to educators on literacy by continuing to invest in our public schools and opposing approaches that mandate the use of specific curricula and restrict instruction. Please email your senator right away and urge them to listen to public school educators, the experts on literacy. Please also consider calling your senator to follow up on your email. You can find their phone number by clicking here.