Proposed early literacy regulations now open for public comment

My laptop ran out of battery power at last week's Board of Ed meeting, so there were two sections I didn't cover: the Commissioner's evaluation, which I do not think I can summarize, and the proposed early literacy regulations. 

Those regulations have now been released for public comment per the Board vote last week. As I noted way back when I wrote about this in February of 2024, how we teach reading has become a crusade: the old way must be entirely vanquished and no one who REALLY cares about children would think otherwise.

It is, of course, not that simple, as teaching humans usually is not the simple.

Massachusetts, unfortunately, rather than learning from the early adopters of this crusade--Mississippi, anyone?--has barreled ahead, and now we have a law that mandates that all early elementary students be taught from the curricula described in the law and no other. Waivers, while provided by the law, were, the Board was told last week, only rarely going to be granted.*

This now necessitates regulations. Note that the regulations are being put before the Board:

• despite the actual list of curricula that qualifies not yet being available (it appears to not yet fully exists)
• despite the free curricula that DESE is required to provide to the estimated 40% of districts that will have to switch curricula not yet being available

Thus we do not really know what it is we're responding to. There is not--no, really not--an anathema definition so clear we all can know without further information what is included. And keeping in mind that it is "three cuing" that is barred, something we includes, and I am not making this up, suggesting that children might look at the pictures in their books, we are in a realm of akin to "Alice in Wonderland." One feels a bit as if one is talking to the Caterpillar when one listens to this being described. 

the Tenniel illustration via Project Gutenberg**

In any case, now is the time to comment on the proposed regulation. 

*this led to a rare mention of school committees by the Board; there was a question as to if school committees would have to vote for a district to pursue a waiver. It appears some Board members wanted this to be required, as they were under the impression that having the district have to make pursuing a waiver public would be unpopular.
Those under this impression greatly are misled about the relative popularity of the Department versus most local school committees with their local communities. 
**yes, I am well aware of the subtext here. No, I am not implying anything additional here.