Examining the Student Literacy Act: How Massachusetts’ new early literacy law took shape

In the wake of the COVID pandemic, the struggles of Massachusetts’ youngest readers were alarming. In 2021, just 51% of third graders met or exceeded expectations on the MCAS English language arts exam. Among Black students, the figure was 32%; for Hispanic/Latino students, it was 28%. There was reason to believe those results would improve as schools recovered. They did not. By 2025, just 42% of third graders met or exceeded expectations, including 26% of Black students and 23% of Hispanic/Latino students. The call to action was clear: Massachusetts needed a coherent approach to improving early literacy, grounded in evidence about how children learn and designed to ensure every student has the support they need. A new state literacy law marks an important step toward that goal.

The pandemic exposed and deepened a problem that already existed. Student reading outcomes had been largely flat for years, with little progress in closing substantial gaps between Black and Hispanic/Latino students and their White peers. Early reading difficulties can have lasting consequences. By third grade, students increasingly depend on reading to learn new subject matter, and those who struggle can fall further behind. Research from the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that students who were not proficient readers by the end of third grade were four times as likely to fail to graduate from high school on time as students who were proficient readers.

To be clear, Massachusetts was not alone in facing a growing literacy crisis. Across the country, states have increasingly turned to evidence-based reading instruction to improve student outcomes. More than 40 states have now adopted laws advancing these approaches. Mississippi adopted its landmark reading law in 2013. Once 49th in the nation in fourth-grade reading, Mississippi climbed to ninth in 2024, with an average score statistically indistinguishable from those of all higher-ranked states except Massachusetts. Neighboring Alabama followed Mississippi's lead, adopting an ambitious set of literacy policies. Between 2019 and 2024, Alabama climbed from 49th to 34th nationally in fourth-grade reading, becoming one of only two states to post reading scores above pre-pandemic levels. Massachusetts, long accustomed to being a national leader in education, risked falling behind states that moved earlier and were already seeing results.

However, Massachusetts has now taken an important step of its own. On June 26, 2026, Governor Healey signed H.5511, An Act Relative to Teacher Preparation and Student Literacy, creating a new statewide framework for early literacy, with full implementation required by the 2027-28 school year.

Understanding what it will take to meet the law’s aspirations and improve early literacy for all students means understanding how Massachusetts got here. The final law emerged from years of debate on different strategies for improving literacy. Along the way, policymakers wrestled with what the state should require of schools, where to invest resources, and how best to support educators and districts in putting new expectations into practice. Tracing that evolution helps explain both the framework Massachusetts adopted and the challenges ahead.

Laying the Groundwork

Massachusetts’s path toward a comprehensive literacy law began with a narrower focus on identifying and supporting students with dyslexia and other reading difficulties. A 2018 law directed the state to develop research-based screening guidelines. At the same time, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) was building a broader statewide literacy strategy, identifying high-quality core instruction and evidence-based early literacy as priorities in 2019 and releasing the Mass Literacy Guide in 2020. Those efforts helped inform a 2022 regulation requiring twice-annual K–3 reading screening for all students beginning in 2023, with additional support for students falling below developmental benchmarks.

The legislative conversation soon broadened as well, moving beyond identifying students who needed help toward strengthening the literacy instruction every student receives. H.579/S.263, introduced during the 2023–24 legislative session, proposed a more comprehensive approach to evidence-based curriculum, professional learning, and intervention. In March 2024, the Joint Committee on Education favorably reported a new draft, S.2653, which advanced to the Senate Ways and Means Committee before stalling at the end of the session. Many of its core ideas, along with the broader shift toward evidence-based literacy instruction for all students, would return in the next legislative session.

The House’s Vision: Instruction and Capacity

The push for comprehensive legislation gained new momentum in 2025 with H.698 and its Senate companion, S.338. The Joint Committee on Education held a hearing on the bills in September, with testimony from advocates and expert organizations including the Rennie Center. The committee produced a new draft, and after further amendments, the House passed H.4683, An Act Relative to Teacher Preparation and Student Literacy, on October 29.

The House bill set clear expectations for evidence-based reading practice. It defined high-quality literacy instruction around five research-based pillars: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Together, these skills help students hear and manipulate sounds in spoken language, connect those sounds to written letters, read accurately and fluently, and understand what they read. The bill reinforced that approach by prohibiting “three-cueing,” which teaches students to identify unfamiliar words using context or pictures rather than by relying on decoding. A floor amendment later allowed pictures to supplement evidence-based instruction.

The House bill also sought to build schools’ capacity to meet these expectations. It directed DESE to provide professional development for literacy specialists, who provide targeted expertise and support for struggling readers, while making investments in school libraries to expand students’ access to high-quality texts. The bill also called for collaboration with the American Federation of Teachers-Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Teachers Association to assess workforce needs and develop strategies for recruiting, preparing, and retaining educators. Stronger standards would accomplish little without the people, expertise, and resources needed to put them into practice.

The Senate’s Vision: Funding and Accountability

The Senate had been part of the legislative effort from the beginning, with S.338 serving as the companion to the original House bill introduced early in the 2025-26 legislative session. After the House passed its version, the Senate returned to the legislation in January 2026 with S.2940, retaining much of the House framework while making several important changes. The Senate expanded the definition of evidence-based literacy to include oral language and communication skills and strengthened screening requirements. Districts would be required to document their screening protocols, report them to DESE, and ensure that assessments and interventions accounted for the needs of English learners.

The Senate also made different choices about how to support implementation. It did not retain the House provisions focused on school libraries, literacy specialists, or workforce planning with educator unions, nor did it include an explicit prohibition on three-cueing. Instead, the Senate created an Early Literacy Fund and proposed an immediate $25 million investment to help districts adopt high-quality curricula and related supports, with priority given to districts facing the greatest financial and geographic barriers. It also established more detailed timelines and public reporting requirements to track progress once the bill took effect.

Reaching a Compromise

By the time the bills reached conference committee, the House and Senate agreed on much of the direction Massachusetts should take. Both supported evidence-based literacy practices, stronger screening, clearer state expectations, and greater support for implementation. The remaining differences raised important questions about what those commitments would mean in practice: how prescriptive the state should be about classroom instruction, what resources schools would need to meet new expectations, and how those investments would be sustained.

The final law settled some of those questions while leaving others unresolved. It retained the House’s prohibition on three-cueing, establishing a clear statewide expectation that students be taught to decode unfamiliar words rather than rely on context or pictures as a substitute. It also retained the Senate’s Early Literacy Fund, but not the proposed $25 million appropriation to launch it. Senator Sal DiDomenico, the Senate’s lead negotiator, indicated that funding could come through a future supplemental budget or another legislative vehicle. The House’s specific provisions for school libraries and literacy specialists did not survive in their original form, although the fund can support professional development alongside curriculum and instructional materials.

From Legislation to Implementation

The passage of An Act Relative to Teacher Preparation and Student Literacy marks a major milestone in Massachusetts’s evolving work on early literacy. The law sets clearer expectations for how schools support young readers and brings those expectations together in a stronger statewide framework. Massachusetts also has important infrastructure to build on. The state’s Literacy Launch initiative kicked off in 2024 with an initial $20 million investment to help schools adopt high-quality instructional materials and provide educators with professional development, coaching, and technical support. Since then, more than $10 million in grants have reached 45 districts, while separate investments in high-dosage literacy tutoring have provided targeted support to students in hundreds of elementary schools. These efforts provide a foundation for the work ahead, but they are still relatively new and depend on continued public investment.

The work now is to bring ensure these pieces come together to sustain long-term change in what happens in classrooms. Schools need strong materials and skilled educators. Teachers need time and ongoing support to strengthen their practice. Students who fall behind need effective interventions. The real measure of success will be whether more children become strong readers and whether the gaps that have persisted for far too long finally begin to close.