Massachusetts Science of Reading Senate Bill No. 338 Commentary
Jill Kerper Mora, Ed.D.
San Diego State University
The California Story
I write this commentary from my perspective as an expert in literacy and biliteracy instruction for multilingual learners who worked on the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) research team in response to proposed Science of Reading legislation in our State. Under CABE’s leadership, a coalition of advocacy organizations opposed and/or expressed deep concerns about the legislation in the California Assembly, AB 2222 (Rubio) in March of 2024. This bill failed when it was not voted out of the Assembly Education Committee. Then March 2025, another bill went through several iterations but was eventually passed as AB 1454 (Rivas) and as of this writing, is under consideration in the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. AB 1454 is a compromise bill that is the product of negotiations with advocacy groups that supported the legislation, including versions that proposed bans on certain methods, approaches and strategies of instruction.
Click here for a research monograph on the opposition to California’s AB 2222 legislation: Pushing back against Science of Reading mandates: The California story.
In the negotiations, CABE and the California Teachers Association (CTA) stood firm in opposition to the legislation that would have enacted mandates regarding alignment with a body of research literature and also, bans against instructional options for teachers. We affirmed that California educators already have a state adopted English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework that is comprehensive and robust that targets literacy and biliteracy. The ELA/ELD Framework is fully aligned with the Common Core State Standards, which themselves are research-based, drawing from transdisciplinary research from multiple academic disciplines (Mora, 2024).
Massachusetts Science of Reading Legislation
Massachusetts Senate Bill No. 338 (DiDomenico) is titled “An Act promoting high-quality comprehensive literacy instruction in all Massachusetts schools” The bill provides a number of definitions of terms, including “evidence-based literacy instruction” and “scientifically-based reading research” as defined by Congress in 20 USC 6368 “(6) that (i) applies rigorous, systematic, and objective observational or experimental procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading and writing difficulties. Inclusion of these technical definitions of terms is vitally important in a legislative bill so that all stakeholders are assured that we are talking about the same thing when we consider the implications of the legislation. Therefore, it is important to note that according to this definition, “scientifically-based reading research” includes both experimental and observational procedures and that involve “measurements or observational methods.” This is a consequential statement about research methods because of language in the bill that proposes that instruction may not include certain characteristics, thereby implying that these characteristics are not “evidence-based literacy instruction.” See specifically lines 46-50 of the Senate bill:
The instruction may not include implicit and incidental instruction in word reading, visual memorization of whole words, guessing from context, and picture cues, which may also be known as MSV or three-cueing. Evidence-based literacy instruction should align with scientifically-based reading research standards set forth in 20 USC 6368 (3)(4)(5)(6)(7).
The exclusion of certain modes of instruction, usually referred to in Science of Reading legislation as methods, approaches, strategies or practices, is highly problematic and controversial, as we experienced in California. There are several reasons for the controversy around bans on instruction articulated in legislation that becomes law. In fact, these bans are a fairly new phenomenon in literacy education policies. Laws that tell teachers what to do in their instruction are quite common but laws that tell teachers what not to do are unusual. However, SoR legislation mandates that teachers adhere to or align with a singular body of research literature, while also banning certain common practices, such as those listed in the Massachusetts Senate Bill No. 338.
Curriculum Frameworks
Teachers are reasonably required to adhere to and align instruction with state curriculum standards, articulated through a state board of education approved framework and accompanying resource documents. This is the case in Massachusetts under the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts and Literacy (2017). The research base for the Framework is provided in Appendix D: Resources and Bibliography., p.187- 193. Based on a cursory review of the bibliography, a literacy researcher can conclude that the Massachusetts Framework does in fact, contain a coherent and current, as of the date of publication, Science of Reading research base. Therefore, this raises these questions: What does Senate bill No. 338 propose to add to or replace from the scientific research base included in the Framework? Why are specific literacy instruction practices proposed to be excluded from classroom implementation of the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework?
Problematic Bans and Mandates
To return to our California experience with Science of Reading mandates, allow me to give a concrete example of why advocacy organizations and the California Teachers Association opposed the AB 2222 bill. California’s student population is comprised of 40% of students who speak a language other than English in the home (Buenrostro, 2024). Of these students, 19% are classified as English learners (EL). Consequently, the CA ELA/ELD Framework relies heavily on research that addresses the characteristics and academic learning needs and challenges of this linguistically diverse student population. The body of research that is identified as the Science of Reading alone cannot fully inform curriculum and instruction for California’s population of students. One body of research that informs instruction for multilingual learners, especially those classified as EL is second language (L2) acquisition research. A foundational theoretical perspective stemming from this theory of comprehensible input attributed to Professor Stephen Krashen. Of most relevance in our opposition to SoR legislation, which proposed bans similar to those proposed by the MA Senate bill No. 338, was a ban on the use of “pictures cues” and “three-cueing.” Teachers who hold a bilingual credential and teachers who hold an authorization for instruction of EL students are familiar with Krashen’s theory of comprehensible input, which encourages the use of images, realia and other ways for students to visualize and comprehend vocabulary and conversational as well as academic language. Therefore, these teachers were puzzled and confused by a proposed law that banned the means for them to provide their multilingual learners with comprehensible input through the use of “picture cues.” No satisfactory explanation of this ban was provided by the sponsors of AB 2222.
Literacy and Biliteracy Research Bibliographies
I present this example of the incongruence between legislative mandates and the transdisciplinary theoretical research base for effective literacy and biliteracy instruction in California as a note of caution to Massachusetts educators in considering their support or opposition to Senate Bill No. 338. I am qualified to speak to the transdisciplinary research base for the forms of instruction that this bill proposes to exclude to affirm that all of these instructional practices are, in fact, evidence-based and are supported by scientifically-based reading research. I can provide bibliographies to support my claim. See this link to view a bibliography of research studies that provide evidence for the effectiveness of the following approaches and strategies: REFERENCES Topic Bibliographies
MA Senate Bill No. 338 banned approach or strategy #1: Implicit and incidental instruction in word reading is supported by empirical and observational research from second language acquisition research, specifically on L2 processing and metalinguistics.
Metalinguistics: A Bibliography | MoraModules
MA Senate Bill No. 338 Banned approach or strategy #2: Visual memorization of whole words is supported by theoretical models and empirical research on the dual-route model and other scientifically-based research models of reading.
Models of Reading Bibliography | MoraModules
MA Senate Bill No. 338 Banned approach or strategy #3: The concept of “guessing from context” is supported by linguistic, psycholinguistics, cognitive learning and neuroscience through studies of the constructs or terms linguistic prediction, and pattern recognition, and lexical inferencing.
Linguistic Prediction in Neuroscience Research | MoraModules
MA Senate Bill No. 338 Banned approach or strategy #4: The construct of “cueing” is supported by multiple theoretical perspectives and bodies of research, including research cited in the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework.
Cues, Cueing and Miscues: A Bibliography | MoraModules
Conclusion
My advice to my Massachusetts colleagues is this: Stand firm against legislative bans and mandates that are coercive and restrictive that limit or distort what teachers know to be effective in their own classrooms with their own students. It is a misuse and a distortion of the purpose and utility of education research for a legislature to mandate adherence to or alignment with a singular body of research. Research cannot be used as a regulatory schema. Any attempt to impose a body of research is an attempt to impose an interpretation of research, not the research itself. Research does not speak with one and only one voice, nor do we researchers ourselves. I offer my voice to encourage you to affirm your agency as educators to oppose Massachusetts Senate Bill 338.
Click here for A Multilingual Educator Fact-Checks SoR Claims: Executive Summary.
Jill Kerper Mora, Ed.D.