High-Quality Literacy Legislation S.338 / H.698: Myth-Busting
MYTH: This legislation is “mandating the use of specific curriculum in school districts” and a “one-size-fits-all approach to literacy curriculum and instruction.”
REALITY: Each of these points is false. The language of the bill does not mention any specific curriculum and includes no provision for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to mandate the curricula districts must choose.
MYTH: Most districts are adopting evidence-based curriculum, we don’t need legislation.
REALITY: Just over 25% of Massachusetts teachers have access to high-quality English language arts curriculum (the national average is 50%) despite $46M in state funding. At this rate, we will not provide 100% of teachers with high-quality materials until the year 2050.
MYTH: Vetting curriculum would mean only a handful of evidence-based curriculum would be approved by DESE, significantly limiting districts' and educators' choices.
REALITY: The process and criteria DESE will use is not specified in this legislation, which makes this statement nothing but speculation. See the actual language of the legislation.
MYTH: Research supports evidence-based literacy instruction, but also supports instructional practices like three cueing.
REALITY: Thousands of meta-analyses and peer-reviewed studies support evidence-based literacy, including the 2000 National Reading Panel’s report, which reviewed tens of thousands of citations. In contrast, research has disproven practices like three cueing.
MYTH: Mandating evidence-based literacy curriculum won’t improve students’ outcomes.
REALITY: Research shows evidence-based curriculum can add an extra half year of learning – and outcomes in NYC, IN, and TX show student outcomes improving. H.698 / S.338 also includes three components beyond curriculum: 1) professional development and instructional support, 2) teacher preparation with HQIM and 3) identifying and supporting struggling students.
MYTH: In the states that have adopted similar evidence-based literacy policies, student outcomes have not been sustained through middle school.
REALITY: More than 40 states passed literacy laws post-pandemic, so evidence on long-term middle school outcomes is still emerging. But early results in AL, LA, and SC are encouraging, showing strengthened early literacy policies lead to positive ripple effects in middle grades.
MYTH: This is an unfunded mandate; districts must purchase new curriculum.
REALITY: False. Districts have 3 options: 1) Use the free evidence-based curriculum Appleseeds provided by DESE. 2) Apply for grants (nearly $60M from Literacy Launch and the Literacy State Design Grant, via PRISM). 3) Districts already receive state funding for curriculum (Chapter 70) and because there is no timeline in S.338 / H.698, districts can move to evidence-based curriculum during their next scheduled purchase of new curricula.
MYTH: Teachers unions are opposed to legislation focused on evidence-based curriculum, instruction and the science of reading, this legislation must be anti-teacher.
REALITY: While the MA American Federation of Teachers (AFT-MA) has not taken a position, their national chapter has worked for over 25 years to support teachers in evidence-based literacy instruction. See the AFT’s report Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science.
MYTH: This legislation is an effort to privatize education. The publishers are behind this.
REALITY: Every member of the Mass Reads Coalition, leading this legislation from inception, is a non-profit organization – there is not one publisher.
MYTH: This legislation’s focus on evidence-based literacy will kill the joy of reading.
REALITY: Children who cannot read rarely experience joy. Joy in reading comes when students know the sounds that the letters make and how the letters combine so they can read fluently.
MYTH: DESE already has a process for vetting the quality of curriculum through its program CURATE (Curriculum Ratings by Teachers), so this legislation is not needed.
REALITY: False. No state process exists to vet evidence-based literacy instruction. CURATE is voluntary and designed to ensure that curriculum is aligned to state standards, not evidence.
MYTH: Students' lowest scores on the 2024 3rd grade MCAS seem to be in writing, not reading, so focusing on changing the reading curriculum won’t address the problem.
REALITY: Literacy encompasses both reading and writing, which is why literacy – not solely reading – is the focus of this legislation. Enacting this legislation would improve students' scores in both reading and writing, seeking to ensure that students attain both of these essential skills for future success.
