THE URGENCY TO address deficits in reading proficiency is justifiable and shared by anyone with a stake in our public education system – which is to say, everyone in the Commonwealth. 

But the way to bring all students to where they need to be in terms of literacy skills is not through legislative directives on curriculum. This approach has not borne sustained positive results in other states and muddies sound educational practices, which are best handled by teachers and school staff and not by politicians. 

The literacy bill recently passed by the House of Representatives adopted some of the concerns that educators have been raising through this debate, including the need to invest in school libraries, librarians, and reading specialists. But the premise of legislating curriculum still is deeply problematic as the Senate takes up its literacy bill. 

Together with Julie Hackett, superintendent of Lexington Public Schools, and Jill Kerper Mora, associate professor emerita from San Diego State University’s School of Teacher Education, we recently met with legislators and legislative staff to explain educators’ opposition to restrictive, mandated reading curriculum. 

The bills in question describe the prescribed curriculum as “evidence based” or “science based,” which are misleading terms. The science of teaching reading is evolving, and we certainly have evidence-based interventions that work, but there is no one-size-fits-all “evidence-based” curriculum. 

While phonics is an essential element of literacy education, we cannot exclude the other components that go into language and literacy or withhold any of the proven techniques that educators use to teach reading. 

It would be wrong to restrict the use of any tool that an educator can use to teach reading, especially to students who do not have English as their first language and benefit from cues that have proven effective. 

If you look at reading proficiency among students in grade 4 in Missouri and Maryland – just two of the 30 states that approved reading bills calling for “evidence-based curricula” that prioritize phonics – you can see trend lines from 2011 to now that show proficiency rates rising and falling, sometimes revealing students doing better than the national average, sometimes dipping below the national average. These ebbs and flows occurred both before and after a reading bill was passed. 

The point is that the needs of any given student population change over time, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. Educators are trained to meet those changes, and they need freedom, support, and professional autonomy to do so. 

The reading bills on Beacon Hill are essentially asking the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to endorse a few phonics-heavy reading curricula that districts can choose from, greatly restricting educator autonomy.  

In addition, this legislation introduces an unfunded mandate and will cause fiscal chaos in districts, as new curriculum can cost between $500,000 and $1 million. Imagine the perverse irony if this bill forced districts to cut staff to buy new, unproven curriculum.  

No single curriculum is as important as teacher expertise when it comes to student achievement. Rather than focusing on narrow curriculum, policymakers should keep their focus on supporting educator preparation and professional development.  

In Massachusetts, our educators are extremely well-trained, combining coursework and field work in classrooms, including 300 hours of work in a classroom before being eligible for a license.  All educator preparation programs are now required to include coursework and experience in using evidence-based literacy instruction.  

The bills under consideration contradict our state’s own academic framework that calls for diversified approaches to teaching literacy. 

Educators need to be able to exercise professional judgment and autonomy in how to guide students through the chosen curriculum. Micromanaging classrooms from the state level is an ineffective and troubling approach to public education. The state education department can certainly play a role in keeping track of successes and failures to help guide districts toward effective curricula and strategies. 

If the Legislature is serious about playing a meaningful role in helping boost literacy rates across the state, we urge lawmakers to:  

• Increase funding and access to high-quality public pre-K programs. 

• Invest in school libraries, librarians, and reading specialists. 

• Support recruitment, training, and professional development for public school educators. 

The House bill has already recognized the need for some of these measures to be put in place.  

Our students come to school ready to learn; we need to be ready to meet their needs. 

Susan Flis is an assistant professor of literacy education at Bridgewater State University. Nicole Prevost is a kindergarten teacher in the Quincy Public Schools.