Governor Maura Healey signs a major education reform bill, showing that even blue states can stand up to teachers’ unions.
Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images
With unanimous support from the state House and Senate, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed a major literacy reform bill on June 26. The law, which requires K-3 students to receive evidence-based reading instruction—phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension—is vital not only for the promise it holds out for public school students but also because it shows how sensible education reform can win over teachers’ unions even in deep-blue states.
With the new law, the Bay State joins several others in banning “three-cueing” or “MSV cueing,” a failed reading strategy that encourages students to guess unfamiliar words using meaning, structure, and visual cues. Among many other provisions, the law also mandates evidence-based reading instruction, requires districts to conduct screenings twice a year to assess students’ reading abilities (which includes dyslexia screening), and funds professional development and apprenticeships aligned with the Science of Reading.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
For years, the measure faced strong opposition from unions, particularly the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA), which argued that it would infringe on teacher autonomy. The state’s teachers’ unions are among the most politically powerful in the country. While union membership has declined in many states, available public figures show a stable union presence in Massachusetts.
But even that power couldn’t outweigh the pressing need for reading reform. Massachusetts students have traditionally been among the top scorers on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, even as national scores have declined. But the state’s lead has been driven by wealthy students, while poorer students have seen major declines, barely edging out their peers in other states. Taking demographics into account, Massachusetts has fallen behind underdogs like Louisiana and Mississippi, whose disadvantaged students have seen comparatively greater improvements. Such results look especially bad for a state that touts its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.
The MTA acted as if it spoke for all teachers in opposing the law, but several teacher groups came out in support of the reforms. One teacher, Jennifer Amento, who was “reprimanded” by her school administrator for using phonics in a voluntary book club, testified that she relied on her own materials and knowledge to teach phonics. “We should not have to rely on our children having the right teacher with the right knowledge,” she said. A 2023 Boston Globe investigation found that almost half of Massachusetts districts were using low-quality school curricula, leaving many students at a disadvantage.
Recognizing that the so-called Education State was losing its grip, Governor Healey made early literacy reform a priority. In a March 2024 interview, she said she was “shocked” to learn that many districts were not using Science of Reading curricula, which focus on phonics. “If I see other states beating us on literacy, that’s not right,” Healey said. This shows the importance of buy-in from powerful leaders.
But a law is only as good as its implementation. While the reform mandates the adoption of approved curricula by the 2027–2028 school year, it allows schools to apply for waivers to use materials not on the state’s approved curriculum list. State education department officials should apply those waivers narrowly. Funding also remains an issue: an initial $25 million appropriation was removed during House–Senate negotiations, though lawmakers express confidence that they will secure the funding through other means.
Even with these open questions, Massachusetts has established a statewide expectation that schools provide high-quality, evidence-based reading instruction. Its success shows that even blue states can get teachers’ unions to back down when the facts demand change.
Neetu Arnold is a Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute.
City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank. Are you interested in supporting the magazine? As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, donations in support of MI and City Journal are fully tax-deductible as provided by law (EIN #13-2912529).
–
–
–
–
Copyright © 2026 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2026 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
EIN #13-2912529
Your opt-out rights
Copyright © 2026 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
–
–
–
About the Author
