Frequently Asked Questions
What do you say to those who propose that teaching students to read proficiently is more than teaching phonics?
We say “we agree.” While systematic instruction in phonics is critical, it is not the only part of teaching children to read. The proposed legislation reflects this position, especially in the definitions of evidence-based literacy. Similarly, DESE’s current Massachusetts English Language Arts and Literacy Framework embraces the complexities of teaching reading and hews closely to the research on effective instruction. Importantly, this bill is narrowly focused on the foundations of reading and does not tread at all on DESE’s well-crafted ELA curriculum framework, which sets the standards for ELA instruction, including the use of complex texts and writing.
How do you respond to those who say that Reading Specialists and classroom educators must be a part of any legislated curriculum changes?
Again, we agree. Certainly, reading specialists and classroom teachers should be part of the district-based selection process to select high-quality, research-aligned curriculum. This bill does not address the district’s curriculum selection process other than to constrain district choice to only those curricula that are aligned to evidence-based reading instruction. The goal of the bill is to take ineffective options off the table. Districts can select from many evidence-based options, according to their students’ needs. DESE has emphasized the importance of including a multitude of stakeholders in decisions regarding literacy curricula, including literacy experts; this bill would not limit engagement of these key stakeholders in the curriculum selection process.
Some critics have worried that this legislation may lead to standardizing instruction, one-size-fits-all resources and a method of instruction that could lead to disengagement and student frustration, as well as the limiting of curricula experiences, in particular in science and social studies. How do you respond?
This legislation (and DESE’s implementation of it) does not promote standardization. There is no curriculum mandate in this bill. Every district maintains the autonomy of adopting and using a curriculum they feel will best meet the needs of their students. The legislation simply requires that districts select from an extensive list of evidence-based curricula that have been vetted and approved by DESE based on their effectiveness.
What do you say to critics who worry that this legislation will not benefit multilingual students (MLL)?
This legislation promotes the use of evidence-based additional supports needed for multilingual students to learn and read a new language at the same time. We agree that multilingual students have different strengths and needs as compared to monolingual English speakers, and schools can best support (bi)literacy development when they ensure the instruction, curricula, assessment, and supports are evidence-based. Since multilingual students’ home language is an asset, it can assist students in their second language acquisition and second language literacy development.
Will this result in an “unfunded mandate” with additional funding needed in districts and schools, particularly in districts that don't receive Student Opportunity Act (SOA) and districts that receive little state or federal funding?
No. Districts are already responsible for providing teachers and students with a literacy curriculum. This legislation simply requires that future district purchases of K-3 literacy curriculum are materials aligned to the evidence of how children learn to read. In recent years, DESE has offered several grant opportunities to support districts to purchase and implement high-quality curriculum, most notably its nearly $20 million GLEAM grant program. Governor Maura Healey's Literacy Launch initiative was funded at $20 million for FY25 and also supports districts to upgrade their literacy curriculum and instructional practices. The future looks bright, with DESE securing an additional $38 million in federal funds to continue these efforts via the PRISM Grants program and the Governor's and House Ways and Means’ FY26 budgets include funding for year two of Literacy Launch. These grant programs supplement the existing local, state, and federal funds districts already use to purchase curriculum. The legislation ensures that funds are not wasted on instructional materials that won't help students learn to read.
What are the provisions in this legislation to hold accountable higher education teacher preparation programs for training all future teachers in evidence-backed approaches to teaching reading?
This legislation includes new requirements for teacher preparation programs, aligned to evidence-based early literacy instruction. Additionally, DESE instituted new early literacy program approval criteria for inclusion in teacher preparation programs as of 2024. DESE will be reviewing teacher preparation programs against these standards (and will approve or require changes to the programs). Learn more at: Accelerated Early Literacy Program Review and Approval.
How and when would this legislation propose training current educators?
This legislation does not include requirements for how or when teachers should be trained. Instead, these decisions would be left to DESE’s discretion when implementing the legislation. DESE may opt to continue training current educators through their highly successful Literacy Academies, and can provide additional training during the summer months, including the provision of grants to compensate teachers for attending summer training sessions. As it has in the past, DESE may also provide grant funding to incentivize training for school and district leadership teams.
Is a separate literacy plan required as part of this legislation? If so, why?
No. There is no requirement for districts to create separate literacy plans in the current bill. The bill does require three-year plans to address implementing evidence-based literacy instruction if the results from the district’s early literacy screening indicate more than 50 percent of students in kindergarten through third grade are below relevant benchmarks for age-typical development in specific literacy skills. DESE could opt to provide a template for district and school strategic plans. Additionally, the legislation does not prevent districts from combining literacy goals in existing strategic plans, and simply submitting both plans as two documents to DESE.
