SJC-12064 01 Appellant Gray Brief

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
"upreme Jubitial Qeourt

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
NO. SJC-12064
STEPHANIE GRAY, ROBERT ANTONUCCI, BILL WALCZAK, DIANNE

KELLY, B. JOHN DILL, KALIMAH RAHIM, APRIL WEST,
BEVERLY HOLMES, JACINTHE ALBANI, AND VANESSA CALDERONROSADO,
Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
MAURA HEALEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AND WILLIAM F. GALVIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH,
Defendants/Appellees
ON RESERVATION AND REPORT FROM THE SUPREME JUDICIAL

COURT FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY
BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS
Kevin C. Conroy (BBO No. 644894)

Thaddeus A. Heuer (BBO No. 666730)
Andrew M. London (BBO No. 690782)
FOLEY HOAG LLP
Seaport World Trade Center West
155 Seaport Boulevard
Boston, MA 02210-2600
617-832-1000
kconroyfoleyhoag.com
theuerfoleyhoag.com
alondonfoleyhoag.com
Dated: March 7, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
QUESTION PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A.
Procedural History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B.
Statement of the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
I.
THE PETITION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 48

BECAUSE SECTION 1 PROPOSES NEITHER A LAW NOR A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ....................... 11
II.

BECAUSE SECTION 1 PROPOSES TO 'RESCIND' A VOTE
WHICH HAD NO OPERATIVE EFFECT .................. 17
III. THE PETITION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 48

BECAUSE IT CONTAINS SUBJECTS THAT ARE NEITHER
RELATED NOR MUTUALLY DEPENDENT ................. 21
A.
Diagnostic Assessments Do Not Share A Common
Purpose with Curriculum Frameworks .................. 24
IV.

BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE REQUISITE
ENACTING LANGUAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Addendum A: Development Process, Common Core State
Standards, http://www.corestandards.org/about-thestandards/development-process ................... ADD-1
Addendum B: Frequently Asked Questions, Common Core
State Standards, http://www.corestandards.org/aboutthe-standards/frequently-asked-questions/ ....... ADD-9
Addendum C: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Massachusetts Curriculum
Frameworks for English Arts and Literacy (March
2 0 11 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADD- 1 7
i
Addendum D: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education, Organizational Chart (March
2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADD-34
Addendum E: Reservation and Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADD-36
Addendum F: Mass. Const. amend. Art. 48 ........ ADD-38
Addendum G: Mass. Const. amend Art. 81 . . . . . . . . . ADD-49
Addendum H: Mass. Const. amend Art. 74 ......... ADD-54
Addendum I: M.G.L. c. 691 1D . . . . . . . . . . ....... ADD-58
Addendum J: M.G.L. c. 69, 1E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADD-62
Addendum K: M.G.L. c. 69, 1I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ADD-64
- ii -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abdow v. Attorney General,

468 Mass.
478
(2014)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,
23,
27,
29
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,
20
Bowe v. Secretary of Commonwealth,

320 Mass.
230
(1946)
Carney v. Attorney General,

447 Mass.
218
(2006)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Cohen v. Attorney General,

3 57 Mass .
56 4
( 19 7 o )
......................3,
11,
12
Dimino v. Secretary of the Commonwealth,

427 Mass.
704
(1998)
.............................. 2
( 19 8 3 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Hashimi v. Kalil,
3 8 8 Mass .
607
Massachusetts Teachers Association v. Secretary

of the Commonwealth,
384 Mass.
209
(1981)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,
21,
22,
25,26
Mazzone v. Attorney General,

432 Mass.
515
(2000)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
In re Opinion of the Justices,

302 Mass.
605
(1939)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Opinion of the Justices,

66 N.H.
629
(1891)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Opinion of the Justices to the House of

Representatives,
262 Mass.
603
(1928)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,
12,
14
4,
26

Representatives,
422 Mass.
1212
(1996)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,
Paisner v. Attorney General,

390 Mass.
593
(1983)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
iii -
Sears v. Treasurer & Receiver General,

327 Mass.
310
(1951)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Student Number 9 v. Board of Education,

440 Mass.
752
(2004)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 13
Town of Canton v. Commissioner of Massachusetts

Highway Department,
455 Mass.
783
(2010)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Constitutional Provisions
Mass.
Const.,
art.
4,
c. 1,
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mass.
Const.,
art.
30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Mass. Const. amend. Art. 48, II

(The Initiative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Mass.
Const. amend Art.
74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,
Mass . Cons t . amend Art . 81,
21
3 ...................... 3 4
Statutory Authorities
Massachusetts Education Reform Act, St. 1993,
c.71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
M.G.L. c.
4,
3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,
35
M.G.L.
c.
15,
M.G.L.
c.
40N,
25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
M.G.L.
c.
43B,
15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
M.G.L. c.
43C,
5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
M.G.L.
c.
69
M.G.L.
c.
69,
1D
M.G.L.
c.
69,
1E
M.G.L. c.
69,
1I
1E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
..
. . .
..
..
. ..
.
...
..
.
-
iv -
. .
8,
12,
13,
14
3,
5,
7,
13,
19
5,
61
13,
19
. . . . . . . 3,
M.G.L. c. 71, 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ... 34
Additional Authorities
Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1969) ........... 17

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) ............... 26
Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) ............... 17
Debates in the Massachusetts Constitutional
Convention 1917-1918, Volume 2, 856 (1918)
........ 26
Development Process, Common Core State Standards,

http://www.corestandards.org/about-thestandards/development-process
(accessed Mar. 4, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Frequently Asked Questions, Common Core State
Standards, http://www.corestandards.org/aboutthe-standards/frequently-asked-questions/
(accessed Mar. 4, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Massachusetts Curriculum
Frameworks for English Arts and Literacy (March
2011) available at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ela/0311.pdf
(accessed Mar. 4, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Organizational Chart(March
2015), available at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/contact/orgchart.pdf
(accessed Mar. 4, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education (Dec .. 21, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 19
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the
Education (July 21, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 17, 18
- v -
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1.
Whether the Attorney General erred in certifying
Initiative Petition No. 15-12, entitled "Initiative

Petition for a Law Relative to Ending Common Core
Educational Standards"
(the "Petition"), for inclusion
on the State election ballot in November 2016.

2.
the Petition because the Petition does not propose a

law as required by Article 48, II (The Initiative).
3.
the Petition because the Petition contains subjects

that are not related or mutually dependent.
4.
the Petition because the Petition is not otherwise in

the proper form for submission to the people.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs seek review of a proposed ballot

initiative, which was drafted to capture the zeitgeist
of a national public policy debate, but which fails to
meet the Massachusetts-specific constitutional
requirements for submission to the people.
The Common Core State Standards ("Common Core" or
"Common Core Standards") were developed in 2009 by
state leaders and educators at the initiative of the

National Governors Association and the Council of
Chief State School Officers, to ensure that students
are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge
to be globally competitive. 1
The Common Core Standards
define learning goals for each grade level, so

students are able to meet expectations for what every
child should know when they graduate high school. 2 In
December 2010, the Massachusetts Board of Elementary
and Secondary Education (the "Board"), exercising its
broad statutory discretion, adopted new Massachusetts
Curriculum Frameworks, which incorporate Common Core.
See (Statement of Agreed Facts ("SAF")
~11;
SAF
Exhibit F).
The Common Core Standards have been at the center
of the nation-wide debate about educational standards
See Development Process, Common Core State Standards,

http://www.corestandards.org/about-thestandards/development-process (accessed Mar. 4,
2016) (Addendum A at ADD-2); see also Dimino v.
Secretary of the Commonwealth, 427 Mass. 704, 707
(1998) ("[f]actual matters which are 'indisputably
true" are subject to judicial notice" as part of the
initiative review process) .
2
See Frequently Asked Questions, Common Core State

Standards, http://www.corestandards.org/about-thestandards/frequently-asked-questions/ (accessed Mar.
4, 2016) (Addendum B at ADD-10).
- 2 -
and curriculum in public schools.
The sixteen
registered voters who submitted the Petition (the

"Petitioners") oppose the Common Core Standards.
The
Petition seeks to do three things: 1) "rescind" a July

2010 vote of the Board relative to Common Core,
2)amend G.L. c. 69, 1D to change the process by which
the Board adopts future curriculum frameworks, and 3)
amend G.L. c. 69, 1I to mandate the release of all
test items, including questions, from the state
diagnostic assessment.
The requirements set forth in Article 48 for
submitting a petition to the people are not mere
formalities.
Representatives, 422 Mass. 1212, 1219 (1996)
(stating
that the Court requires "strict adherence to the

constitutional requirements for initiative petitions"
and that those requirements "are not mere
technicalities").
The Initiative and Referendum was
one of the most debated issues at the Constitutional

Convention of 1917-1918.
See Cohen v. Attorney Gen.,
357 Mass. 564, 572 (1970).
The people of the
Commonwealth, in adopting Article 48, appreciated the

solemnity of legislating through the popular
initiative and set forth clear limitations on the use
- 3 -
of the initiative petition.
When the people "seek to
enact laws by direct popular vote, they must do so in

strict compliance with those provisions and
conditions."
Opinion of the Justices, 422 Mass. at
1219 (citing Sears v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 327

Mass. 310, 321 (1951)).
The Petitioners failed to meet the Article 48
requirements.
Nevertheless, the Attorney General
certified that the Petition met the requirements of

Article 48, and the Secretary, subject to receipt of
additional signatures required by Article 48, intends
to put the Petition on the 2016 ballot.
In this litigation, the Plaintiffs challenge that
certification and ballot placement, maintain that the
Petition does not meet the constitutional
requirements, and ask that this Court quash the
certification by the Attorney General.
A. Procedural History
Plaintiffs are ten registered voters in the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
(SAF
~1).
Plaintiffs
commenced this action by complaint filed in the

Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County.
The
complaint sought relief in the nature of certiorari

and mandamus to quash the certification of the
- 4 -
Petition by the Attorney General, and to enjoin the

Secretary from placing the Petition on the 2016
statewide ballot.
On joint motion and an agreed
statement of facts, the Single Justice reserved and

reported the case for consideration by the full Court
(Addendum E at ADD-37) .
B. Statement of the Facts
The Massachusetts General Court, by statute, has

granted the Board broad authority to evaluate, select
and adopt curriculum frameworks for kindergarten
through the 12th grade in Massachusetts public
schools. See G.L. c. 69, lD & lE. The Board consists
of 11 members, all of whom except one (the seat
reserved for the chairman of the student advisory
council) are appointed by the Governor. G.L. c. 15,
lE. 3
Pursuant to this statutory authority, on July 21,
2010, the Board voted by a motion to "adopt the 2010
Common Core State Standards to replace the current
Massachusetts curriculum frameworks in English
The chairman of the student advisory council is a

current student at a secondary school in
Massachusetts, and is.selected by the other student
members of the student advisory council.
-
5 -
Language Arts and Mathematics, contingent upon

augmenting and customizing the Common Core State
Standards within the 15 percent allowance" for state
specific content (SAF
added) .
~10;
SAF Exhibit E)
(emphasis
The motion required the Commissioner of
Elementary and Secondary Education (the

"Commissioner") to subsequently "present his
recommendations for augmenting and customizing the
Common Core to the Board."
(SAF Exhibit E). Following
a public comment period, the Commissioner was

instructed to "present to the Board the final Common
Core State Standards including the Massachusettsspecific augmentation for the Board's approval.
Upon
approval by the Board, the final documents [would] be

the new Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks for
English Language Arts and Mathematics." Id.
The Board
passed the motion unanimously. Id.

On December 21, 2010, exercising its discretion
as authorized by G.L. c. 69, 1E, the Board voted to
"adopt the new Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for
English Language Arts and Literacy, Incorporating the
Common Core State Standards, and the new Massachusetts
Curriculum Framework for Mathematics,
- 6 -
Incorporating
the Common Core State Standards."
Exhibit F)
(SAF
~11;
SAF
(italics in original).
On or before August 5, 2015, the Petitioners

submitted to the Attorney General a signed proposed
initiative petition entitled "An Initiative Petition
for a Law Relative to Ending Common Core Educational
Standards"
(the "Petition").
(SAF
~2).
The Attorney
General numbered the Petition as Initiative Petition

No . 15 - 12 .
( SAF
~2)
The Petition proposes three distinct actions.

First, the Petition seeks to "rescind" the July 2010
vote of the Board relative to the Common Core State
Standards.
Second, the Petition seeks to amend G.L.
c. 69, 1D to amend the procedure for the Board to

adopt future curriculum frameworks.
Finally, the
Petition seeks to amend G.L. c. 69, 1I to require

that the Commonwealth release annually all test
materials, including all questions, from the
Commonwealth's diagnostic assessments.
On September 2, 2015, the Attorney General
certified that the Petition was in the proper form for
submission to the people and met the requirements
under Article 48, II (The Initiative).
(SAF ~3).
Attorney General also prepared a summary of the

- 7 -
The
Petition to be used with the forms for gathering

additional signatures.
(SAF
~4).
The Secretary of the Commonwealth subsequently

prepared and distributed blank signature forms for
circulation by the Petitioners.
(SAF
~6).
The
Petitioners have submitted to the Secretary forms

containing the necessary additional signatures to
require the transmission of the Petition to the
Legislature.
(SAF
~7).
If the Petitioners submit
further sufficient additional signatures to the

Secretary by the first Wednesday in July this year,
the Secretary intends to print the Petition on the
ballot for presentation to the people in November.
(SAF
~9).
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
1. Article 48 limits the initiative petition to

proposed laws and constitutional amendments.
Section
1 of the Petition seeks to "rescind" a vote of the

Board.
A declaration rescinding a vote of the Board
is not a "law" for purposes of Article 48.
This Court
has held that a law is a "measure with binding effect

or as importing a general rule of conduct with
appropriate means for its enforcement," Mazzone v.
Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 515, 530 (2000).
- 8 -
Under G.L.
c. 69, the Board has broad discretion to develop and

adopt curriculum frameworks.
Section 1 does nothing
to limit the Board's discretion over the

Commonwealth's current frameworks, but merely seeks to
undo how the Board has exercised this discretion.
(p.
11-17).
2. The Petition does not propose a law because
even if an initiative petition could rescind a vote of
an executive entity - which it cannot - the vote the
Petition seeks to rescind had no operative effect.
The July 2010 vote the Petition seeks to rescind was
"contingent upon" Massachusetts augmenting and
customizing the Common Core Standards.
The Board did
not adopt the new standards until its December 2010

meeting.
Because the Petition only "rescinds" the
contingent July vote, the Petition would have no

effect on the December vote that actually adopted the
new Massachusetts Frameworks Incorporating Common
Core. Section 1 thus cannot be characterized as a law
because it is not binding. See Paisner v. Attorney
General, 390 Mass. 593, 601 (1983).
(p. 17-21).
3. Article 48 limits an initiative petition to

those subjects "which are related or which are
mutually dependent." Art. 48, II (The Initiative), 3
- 9 -
as amended by Art. 74. Relatedness depends on whether

the various sections of the Petition enable a voter to
"affirm or reject the entire petition as a unified
statement of public policy." Carney v. Attorney Gen.,
447 Mass. 218, 230-31 (2006).
There is no such
inherent relation between the development of

curriculum frameworks and process by which the state
conducts diagnostic assessments. By grouping together
two unrelated issues whose abstract connection is the
general field of public education, the petition
engages in the very logrolling that the mutual
dependence requirement was intended to prevent.
(p.
21-32).
3. The Petition is otherwise not in the proper
form for submission to the people, as the Petition
does not contain the requisite enacting language.
The
enacting language is a jurisdictional prerequisite to

certification by the Attorney General. As such, the
Attorney General erred in certifying the Petition.
33-35)
- 10 -
(p.
ARGUMENT
I.
THE PETITION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ARTICLE

48 BECAUSE SECTION 1 PROPOSES NEITHER A
LAW NOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
The Attorney General erred in certifying the

Petition because it does not propose a law.
Article 48,
Under
"[a]n initiative petition is not the
proper vehicle for enacting measures other than

constitutional amendments or laws." Mazzone v.
Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 515, 529 (2000). It is well
established that initiative petitions that fail to
propose a law must be rejected for failing to be in
the proper form, because they are beyond the scope of
Article 48. Paisner v. Attorney Gen., 390 Mass. 593,
598 (1983); Cohen v. Attorney Gen., 357 Mass. 564
(1970); Opinion of the Justices, 262 Mass. 603 (1928).
By limiting the initiative petition to proposed laws
and constitutional amendments, Art. 48 "is more narrow
than the power conferred upon the General Court by c.
1, 1 art. 4 of the Constitution."
Opinion of the
Justices to the House of Representatives, 262 Mass. at

605. In contrast to Art. 48, the Declaration of Rights
authorizes the General Court to "make, ordain, and
establish, all manner of wholesome and reasonable
orders, laws, statutes, and ordinances, directions,
- 11 -
and instructions, either with penalties or without."

Chapter 1 (The Legislative Power) , 1 (The General
Court), art. 4.
Section 1 of the Petition is neither a law nor a
constitutional amendment.
This Court has described a
"law" as "a measure with binding effect or as

importing a general rule of conduct with appropriate
means for its enforcement declared by some authority
possessing sovereign power over the subject." Mazzone,
432 Mass. at 530 (citing Opinion of the Justices, 262
Mass. at 605); Paisner, 390 Mass. at 600("a law is
binding").
In contrast, a law is not "a transient
sudden order from a superior to or concerning a

particular person; but something permanent, uniform,
and universal." Cohen v. Attorney Gen., 357 Mass. 564
at 570 fn. 5 (1970)
(quoting Opinion of the Justices,
66 N.H. 629, 632 (1891)).

Section 1 attempts to rescind a single specific
vote taken by the Board acting pursuant to its broad
executive authority.
Yet a declaration that purports
to rescind a vote by the Board is not a "law" for

purposes of Article 48.
Conceivably, an initiative
petition could seek to amend G.L. c. 69 to prohibit

certain curriculum standards.
- 12 -
Or an initiative
petition could amend G.L. c. 69 to limit the Board's

discretion in adopting future curriculum standards. An
initiative petition could even theoretically require
that the Board adopt specific curriculum standards,
eliminating the Board's discretion in this regard.
Any of these options could conceivably establish a
binding prospective rule on the Board.
However,
Section 1 does none of these things.

The Legislature intentionally granted "broad
discretion to the [B]oard to carry out its
responsibilities" in implementing G.L. c. 69,
including discretion in the adoption of academic
standards. See Student No.
9 v. Board of Educ., 440
Mass. 752, 765 (2004). The Legislature passed the

Massachusetts Education Reform Act (codified, in part,
as G.L. c. 69)
"with attention to the fact that the
Legislature has entrusted the board with the Act's

implementation."
Id. 763.
In adopting the new
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks in December 2010,

the Board acted pursuant to this statutory authority. 4
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Massachusetts

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (Dec. 21,
2010) at 4 ("The [Board] in accordance with Chapter
69, Section 1E of the General Laws
.") (SAF
- 13 -
If the people (acting as the Legislature) wish to

limit the authority entrusted to the Board, they must
do so by passing a law that amends the relevant
provisions of Chapter 69 - not by acting
retrospectively to rescind a vote of the Board made
pursuant to its authority to execute the laws. Indeed,
in sharp contrast to Sections 2 through 4, which would
amend the process by which the Board may adopt future
frameworks,
if Section 1 were adopted, the G.L. c. 69
requirements regarding the content of the current

standards and frameworks would remain entirely
unchanged. 5
This Court's decision in Paisner is instructive.
See generally 390 Mass. 593.
There, the Court
rejected a proposed initiative petition that would
Exhibit F) ; Minutes of the Special Meeting of the

Education (July 21, 2010) at 7 ("The [Board] in
accordance with Chapter 69, Sections lD and lE of the
General Laws.
. ") (SAF Exhibit E) .
5
Sections 2 through 4 of the Petition "cannot convert

into a law" Section 1 which is "in itself
ineffectual." See Opinion of the Justices, 262 Mass.
at 606 (1928) (finding an initiative petition did not
propose a law despite including legal requirements in
a second section that was "subsidiary and incidental
to the main purpose").
- 14 -
have amended the operating rules of the House and

Senate, noting that the Constitution gives each branch
of the Legislature the unicameral power to set its own
internal rules. Id. at 599.
The Court thus deemed the
petition unenforceable, because the continuing power

of the legislative branch to ignore the petition's
provisions and to determine its own procedures would
render the petition's proposal a nullity. Id. at 600.
The similarities here are striking, given that neither
in Paisner nor in Section 1 here is there a means of
enforcing the directive.
Although obligated under the
Constitution to execute the laws passed by the

Legislature, the executive branch also has the
continuing power under the Constitution to determine
the most appropriate manner in which it will do so.
See In re Opinion of the Justices, 302 Mass. 605, 617
(1939)
("The Legislature, in the exercise of its
functions, may pass laws calling for action by the

executive department .
. It is when it attempts to
interfere with action taken by the executive

department .
. under existing laws, and thus to
project itself into a field of action which belongs to
- 15 -
another department, that art. 30 of the Declaration of

Rights is violated") . 6 The fact that the petitioners
apparently disagree with how the Board has exercised
that power does not mean that the initiative process
offers a means by which to rescind the Board's vote.
As this Court held in Paisner,
"the initiative
proposed here should not be characterized as a law

because it is not binding.
If enacted, it would be no
more than a nonbinding expression of opinion, and [the

Court has] held that such a plebiscite or declaration
is not a law and is not an appropriate subject for the
popular initiative." Id. at 601.
As a result, the Petition fails to comply with
Article 48 because the Petition does not propose a
Plaintiffs recognize that even a facial Art. 30

violation has been held not to constitute sufficient
grounds for the Court to reject certification under
Art. 48, see Bowe v. Secretary of Commonwealth, 320
Mass. 230, 247 (1946), and is not asking the Court to
quash the certification on this basis. However, the
people's power through the initiative petition is
limited to the legislative power. Art. 48, II (The
Initiative), 2. As such, an initiative petition
claiming to rescind the manner in which the executive
branch has implemented existing law, without changing
the underlying statute, is beyond the legislative
power, is thus not a law, and is thus unenforceable.
See Mazzone, 432 Mass. at 531 (describing a law as a
"general rule of conduct with appropriate means for
its enforcement").
- 16 -
"law" as defined by the Court in the context of

initiative petitions. For this reason, the Petition
should not have been certified.
II.

48 BECAUSE SECTION 1 PROPOSES TO "RESCIND"
A VOTE WHICH HAD NO OPERATIVE EFFECT
Furthermore, the Petition is not a law because even

if an initiative petition could rescind a vote of an
executive entity - which it cannot - the vote the
Petition seeks to "rescind" had no operative effect.
Section 1 of the Petition would rescind the vote taken
by the Board on July 21, 2010 relative to the Common
Core Standards.
The Board, however, did not adopt the
Common Core Standards outright on July 21, 2010.

Instead, the Board expressly voted to adopt the Common
Core Standards "contingent upon [Massachusetts]
augmenting and customizing the Common Core State
Standards." 7
See Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)
(defining contingent as "[p]ossible; uncertain;

unpredictable" or "[d]ependent on something else;
conditional"); Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3d ed.
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Massachusetts

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (July 21,
2010) at 7 (SAF Exhibit E).
- 17 -
-------------------~-
1969)
(defining contingent as "possible, or liable,
but not certain to occur").

The July minutes indicate that Commissioner
Mitchell Chester made clear before the vote that the
Board would not adopt any final curriculum standards
until after the Board had received recommendations
regarding augmentation. 8
The July vote directed the
Commissioner to present to the Board no later than

October 2010 "the final Common Core State Standards
including the Massachusetts-specific augmentation for
the Board's approval." 9
Only " [u] pon approval by the
Board" would that augmented document become the "new

Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks." 10
Indeed, the Board did not adopt the new standards
until its December 2010 meeting, when the Board
approved the new "Massachusetts Curriculum Framework
for English Language Arts and Literacy, Incorporating
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Massachusetts

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (July 21,
2010) at 6 ("The commissioner said the recommendations
will come back to the Board, input will be sought from
educators statewide, and then the Board will adopt the
final standards") (SAF Exhibit E).
9
10
Id.
Id.
at 8.
at 8.
- 18 -
the Common Core State Standards" and the new

"Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for Mathematics,
Incorporating the Common Core State Standards." 11
Because the Petition only "rescinds" the
contingent July vote, the Petition would have no
effect on the December vote that actually adopted the
new Massachusetts Frameworks Incorporating Common
Core.
Nor was the July vote a statutory prerequisite to
the December vote.
The Board was authorized to adopt
the new Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks

Incorporating Common Core in December 2010 regardless
of whether the Board had previously voted in principle
to adopt Common Core contingent upon augmentation.
Rescinding the July vote is merely an expression of
dissatisfaction with an unrequired intermediate
procedural step the Board took in exercising its
authority to evaluate, develop, and adopt new
curriculum frameworks. See G.L. c. 69, 1D &1E.
If
the Petition were enacted, it would be no more than a

mere "nonbinding expression of opinion," and the Court
11
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Massachusetts

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (Dec. 21,
2010) at 3-4 (SAF Exhibit F).
- 19 -
has made clear that such plebiscites are not

appropriate subjects for initiative petitions. See
Paisner, 390 Mass. at 601 ("[t]hus the initiative
proposed here should not be characterized as a law

because it is not binding").
Nor is the specific vote the Petition seeks to
repeal subject to a perfecting amendment. Art. 48,
(The Initiative), V., 2; see also Bowe v. Secretary
of the Commonwealth, 320 Mass. 230, 233
(1946).
Because the Board took substantively different actions

with each of these votes, the July and December votes
are far from interchangeable.
Indeed, the December
vote was on a version of Common Core that differed

from the version contingently approved in July to a
sufficient extent that the Board found it necessary to
take a separate vote to authorize approval.
Put
differently, had there been no December vote,

Massachusetts would not have adopted the Common Core
Standards (either as-modified or otherwise) .
The Petitioner's selection of the wrong vote is
unlike the typographical error in Massachusetts
Teachers Ass'n v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, in
which the Court allowed a perfecting amendment to the

statutory citation being repealed because the Court
- 20 -
determined that "no one was misled significantly by

the error in the draftsmanship." See 384 Mass. 209,
236-237 (1981).
In this case, the selection of the
wrong Board vote misleads a potential signatory into

believing that their support of the Petition will
"rescind" the national Common Core Standards that were
debated at the July 2010 meeting, when the Petition
will have no such legal effect.
The Petition does not propose a "law" as defined
by the Court in the context of initiative petitions.
As a result, the Petition fails to comply with Article
48, and should not have been certified.
III.

48 BECAUSE IT CONTAINS SUBJECTS THAT ARE
NEITHER RELATED NOR MUTUALLY DEPENDENT
The plain language of Article 48 limits an

initiative petition to those subjects "which are
related or which are mutually dependent." Art. 48, II
(The Initiative), 3 as amended by Art. 74.
To
satisfy the relatedness requirement, the "initiative

must be framed in a manner that will permit a
reasonable voter to affirm or reject the entire
petition as a unified statement of public policy."
Carney, 447 Mass. 218, 230-31 (2006).
This limitation
is critical because, as the Court has noted, the

- 21 -
initiative petition process "does not, and cannot turn

every voter into a legislator. Unlike a legislator,
the voter has no opportunity to modify, amend, or
negotiate the sections of a law proposed by popular
initiative.
He or she cannot sever the
unobjectionable from the objectionable." Id. at 230.

Over time, the Court has refined the standard for
what constitutes related subjects, to appropriately
balance the interests of petitioners to use the
popular initiative "to bring important matters of
concern directly to the electorate" with the interests
of those who would ultimately vote on the petition to
avoid the "untenable position of casting a single vote
on two or more dissimilar subjects." Abdow v. Attorney
Gen., 468 Mass. 478, 499 (2014). One of the first
cases to address this standard in any detail was
Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n. There, while the Court
upheld an initiative petition because it identified "a
common purpose to which each subject of an initiative
petition can reasonably be said to be germane," the
Court also warned that the purported common purpose
may not be so broad as to "render the 'related
subjects' limitation meaningless." 384 Mass. at 219220 (1981).
- 22 -
The Court then had occasion to clarify this

standard in Carney v. Attorney General, articulating
the "salient inquiry" as to relatedness: "Do the
similarities of an initiative's provisions dominate
what each segment provides separately, so that the
petition is sufficiently coherent to be voted on 'yes'
or 'no' by the voters?" 447 Mass. 218 at 226 (2006).
In other words, "[t]o clear the relatedness hurdle,
the initiative petition must express an operational
relatedness among its substantive parts that would
permit a reasonable voter to affirm or reject the
entire petition as a unified statement of public
policy." Id. at 230-31. The Court further clarified
that "[i]t is not enough that the provisions in an
initiative petition all 'relate' to some same broad
topic at some conceivable level of abstraction." Id.
at 230.
The holdings in Carney and Abdow illustrate how
the operational relatedness test is to be implemented
in practice.
In Carney, the Attorney General
certified an initiative petition that would have both

(i) strengthened penalties for animal cruelty; and
(ii) abolished parimutuel dog racing in the
Commonwealth. Id. at 220-21.
In so doing, the
- 23 -
Attorney General found that those two provisions

satisfied the relatedness requirements of Article 48
because they were related "generally to promoting the
more humane treatment of dogs." Id. at 224.
The Court disagreed, concluding:
"The voter who favors increasing criminal
penalties for animal abuse should be permitted to
register the clear preference without also being
required to favor eliminating parimutuel dog
racing.
Conversely, the voter who thinks that
the criminal penalties for animal abuse statutes
are strong enough should not be required to vote
in favor of extending the reach of our criminal
laws because he favors abolishing parimutuel dog
racing." Id. at 231.
As explained below, the Petition here is neither
a "unified statement of public policy" nor does it
have a coherent common purpose among its provisions.
As such, the Petition fails the relatedness
requirement of Article 48, and cannot be certified.
A. Diagnostic Assessments Do Not Share A Common
Purpose with Curriculum Frameworks
The Petition fails to satisfy the sine qua non of

relatedness as established by the Court: the
demonstration of an "operational relatedness" among
its substantive parts that would "permit a reasonable
voter to affirm or reject the entire petition as a
unified statement of public policy." Carney, 447 Mass.
at 230-31.
Even a cursory review of the Petition

- 24 -
indicates that it lacks a coherent common purpose

among its provisions.
Section 1 through Section 3 arguably relate to
the adoption and creation of educational standards and
curriculum frameworks,
including an effort to reject a
specific curriculum framework, the Common Core.
In
contrast, Section 4 relates to the logistics

surrounding the public release of test questions,
model answers, and other diagnostic assessment
materials.
The Court has clearly articulated that the
"purported common purpose may not be so broad as to

render the relatedness limitation 'meaningless.'"
Carney, 447 Mass. at 225 (quoting Massachusetts
Teachers Ass'n, 384 Mass. at 219).
Just as Carney held that banning parimutuel dog

racing was insufficiently related under Article 48 to
the desire to prevent animal cruelty, 447 Mass. at
230-31, the apparent subjective motive of improving
public education generally is insufficient to clear
the operational relatedness hurdle here. Although both
curriculum standards and diagnostic testing may fall
under the general field of public education, the Court
has been resoundingly clear that the "relatedness"
test is not satisfied by a pronouncement of the
- 25 -
petitioner's broad extrinsic worldview at some

"conceivable level of abstraction." Carney, 447 Mass.
at 230. See also Opinion of the Justices, 422 Mass. at
1220-21 (no discernible common purpose in forcing
voters to both increase legislative accountability and
permit Inspector General to access records of the
commissioner of veteran services).
By grouping together two polarizing yet unrelated
issues involving the general field of education, the
Petitioners seek to motivate two unrelated
constituencies in support of the Initiative: voters
who are opposed to the Common Core Standards, and
voters who are critical of standardized testing.
This
is precisely the type of "logrolling" the mutual

dependence requirement of Art. 48 was intended to
prevent.l 2 See Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n, 384 Mass.
at 219 n. 9 (citing Debates in the Massachusetts
Constitutional Convention 1917-1918, Vol. 2, 856
l 2 "Logrolling" is defined as "[t] he legislative

practice of including several propositions in one
measure or proposed constitutional amendment so that
the legislature or voters will pass all of them, even
though these propositions might not have passed if
they had been submitted separately." Carney, 447 Mass.
at 219, fn. 4 (citing Black's Law Dictionary 960 (8th
ed. 2004) ) .
- 26 -
(1918)); see also Abdow v. Attorney Gen., 468 Mass.

478, 503 (2014) (although not dispositive,
"[e]vidence
of differing motivations is relevant to the

relatedness analysis, because it might bear on the
likelihood of logrolling").
There is no inherent connection between specific
curriculum frameworks on one hand and the release of
test questions, model answers, and other diagnostic
assessment materials on the other.
Curriculum
frameworks define what students are expected to know

and be able to do at certain grade levels.
These
standards can exist independent of any statewide

standardized assessment.
See, e.g., Massachusetts
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,

Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks for English Arts
and Literacy (March 2011)
("While the standards
delineate specific expectations in reading, writing,

speaking, listening and language, each standard need
not be a separate focus for instruction and
assessment"
(emphasis supplied)) . 13
13
In contrast, the
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education, Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks for
English Arts and Literacy (March 2011) at 4, full text
available at
- 27 -
release of test questions and model responses raises

unrelated policy choices about how student achievement
is measured under specific circumstances.
Decisions
regarding the development, process, and general

efficacy of standardized testing would arise
regardless of the specific curriculum frameworks (if
any) that are in place.
The Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education itself recognizes the inherent difference in
these two policy areas by maintaining different
divisions for each of these topics: the Center for
Curriculum and Instruction develops the Massachusetts
Curriculum Frameworks, while the Office of Student
Assessment develops the Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment Systems. 14 These topics are only as related
as any other of the numerous issues that may impact
student performance, including, but not limited to:
class size, school districting, teacher certification
http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ela/0311.pdf
(accessed Mar. 4, 2016) (Addendum C at ADD-27).
14
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education, Organizational Chart (March 2015),
available at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/contact/orgchart.pdf (accessed
Mar. 4, 2016) (Addendum D at ADD-35).
- 28 -
requirements, and the school lunch program.
Each of
these other issues engenders strong opinions among

those concerned about their impact on student
achievement, but each operates independently of one
another.
None would rightly be considered
"operationally related" to curriculum standards for

purposes of Article 48.
If the Petitioners believe that the voters should
legislate a solution to the perceived problem of
inadequate educational standards and curriculum
frameworks, Article 48 requires that voters be
entitled to make such a decision without also being
forced to render simultaneous judgment on the wisdom
of annually releasing to the public all materials
related to diagnostic assessments.
Applying the
Carney and Abdow standards in the context here, a
reasonable Massachusetts voter will be placed in the

"untenable position of casting a single vote on two or
more dissimilar subjects" given that rescinding the
Common Core Standards is mutually unrelated to
mandating changes in how diagnostic assessments are
developed and disclosed. See Abdow, 468 Mass. at 499.
Indeed, it is not difficult to conceive of voting
educators and parents who believe strongly that both
- 29 -
a) it is in the best interest of their students and

children to maintain the (Massachusetts-modified)
Common Core Standards, and simultaneously b) support
the release of all test items and questions related to
diagnostic assessments as also being in the best
interest of their students. and children.
Alternatively, it is not difficult to conceive of a
fiscally conservative voter who, while philosophically
opposed to the Common Core Standards as a matter of
education policy, does not want the Commonwealth to
make the substantial annual appropriation of tax
dollars that would be required to develop a completely
new set of new test questions every year.
Where the
Petition here does not "permit a reasonable voter to

affirm or reject the entire petition as a unified
statement of public policy," Carney, 447 Mass. at 23031, Article 48 prohibits its certification as a matter
of law.
Nor is Mazzone v. Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 515
(2000) to the contrary.
In fact, the petition at
issue in Mazzone only highlights the "operational

relatedness" that is conspicuously absent here.
In
Mazzone, the stated purpose of the petition was to
"expand the scope of the commonwealth's drug treatment

- 30 -
program and provide funding through fines for drug

violations and the forfeiture of assets used in
connection with drug offenses." Id.
at 517-18.
The critical difference is that in Mazzone,

there was a clear linear "operational relatedness"
between the problem addressed (limited eligibility for
drug treatment) and the appropriation of funding (to
pay for drug treatment expansion) .
No similar nexus
exists here between the alleged "problem" of the

adoption of specific curriculum frameworks, and the
alleged "problem" of insufficient public availability
of test materials for whatever comprehensive
diagnostic assessment system the Commonwealth chooses
to utilize.
Nor is it of relevance that the existing
requirements for the adoption of curriculum frameworks
and the statutory requirements for the Commonwealth's
diagnostic assessment were both adopted by the General
Court as part of the same legislation.
See
Massachusetts Education Reform Act, St. 1993, c. 71.

As this Court has observed, legislators - unlike
voters - are able to "modify, amend, or negotiate the
sections of a law." Carney, 447 Mass. at 230.
As a
consequence, laws passed by the Legislature do not

- 31 -
face the same relatedness limitations that the

drafters of Article 48 deemed necessary and
appropriate for the popular initiative. That two
topics were addressed in the same piece of legislation
before the General Court is not evidence of their
relatedness for purposes of Article 48.
In short, there is simply no "common purpose"
expressed by the Petition. See Carney at 230-31.
The
Petition includes two discrete policy preferences that

are not "sufficiently coherent to be voted on 'yes' or
'no' by the voters." Id. at 226.
A reasonable voter
may prefer keeping the Common Core Standards while

releasing all test items from the state's diagnostic
assessment, or vice versa.
He or she cannot
constitutionally be made to accept the poison pill of

voting for both, or neither, when the issues do not
share anything more than an abstract relatedness.
Carney at 230-31.
- 32 -
IV.

48 BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
REQUISITE ENACTING LANGUAGE
The Attorney General should not have certified

the Petition because the Petition does not include the
requisite enacting language.
"The enacting style of all measures submitted to
the people in pursuance of an initiative petition for
a law shall be: Be it enacted by the People, and
EY
their authority." G.L. c. 4, 3 (emphases added).
The
inclusion of this exact language in an initiative

petition is not optional.
The Court has held that the
words of a statute are to be accorded their ordinary

meaning arid approved usage, and "[t]he word 'shall' is
ordinarily interpreted as having a mandatory or
imperative obligation." Hashimi v. Kalil, 388 Mass.
607, 609 (1983).
Yet here, the Petition says instead,
"Be it
enacted by the people and their authority."
The
failure of the Petitioners to include the second

iteration of the word "by" in the enacting language is
not "close enough" to the mandatory language
there
is no de minimis standard for error that the Attorney

General or the Court is empowered to overlook in this
regard.
- 33 -
The Legislature has indicated on numerous

occasions that it is capable of indicating when
language is illustrative and when it is mandatory.
In
numerous other contexts related to putting questions

to the public for a vote, the Legislature has allowed
for phrasing "in substantially the following form. " 15
By contrast, the Legislature did not permit the
enacting language for initiative petitions to be in
"substantially the following form" but, instead, chose
to use the word "shall." "[W]here the Legislature has
carefully employed a term in one place and excluded it
in another, it should not be implied where excluded."
Town of Canton v. Comm'r of Mass. Highway Dep't, 455
Mass. 783, 789 (2010)
(internal quotation omitted).
Nor can this omission be cured through a socalled "perfecting amendment"
(per Article 81, 3) at
some later stage in the process. Article 48, 3

requires that the Attorney General certify that the
15
See, e.g. G.L. c. 40N, 25 (adoption of regional

water districts on printed ballots at town meetings);
G.L. c. 43B, 15 (petitions to revise or amend a city
or town charter); G.L. c. 43C, 5 (petitions to adopt
an optional form of municipal administration); G.L. c.
71, 15 (adoption of a regional school district by the
electorate) .
- 34 -
measure as submitted for certification is "in the

proper form for submission to the people"
supplied) .
(emphases
Compliance with the statutory mandate of
G.L. c. 4, 3 as to form is thus a jurisdictional

prerequisite to certification by the Attorney General.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the

Plaintiffs/Appellants request that the Court enter an
order declaring that the Petition does not meet the
requirements under Article 48 to be placed on the
ballot.
Plaintiffs/Appellants further request that
this Court enjoin the Attorney General and the

Secretary of the Commonwealth from taking any further
actions to permit this Petition from being placed on
the November 2016 state election ballot.
Respectfully submitted,
STEPHANIE GRAY, ROBERT ANTONUCCI,
BILL WALCZAK, DIANNE KELLY, B.
JOHN DILL, KALIMAH RAHIM, APRIL
WEST, BEVERLYHOLMES, JACINTHE
ALBANI, and VANESSA CALDERONROSADO,
Kevin C. Conroy
No. 644894)
Thaddeus A. Heuer (BBO No. 666730)
Andrew M. London (BBO No. 690782)
FOLEY HOAG LLP
Seaport World Trade Center West
-
35 -
155 Seaport Boulevard

Boston, MA 02210-2600
617-832-1000
kconroyfoleyhoag.com
theuer@foleyhoag.com
alondonfoleyhoag.com
Date: March 7, 2016
- 36 -
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I, Andrew London, counsel for Plaintiffs, hereby

certify pursuant to Mass. R. App. P. 16(k) on this 7th
day of March 2016, that the foregoing brief complies
with the rules of court that pertain to the filing of
briefs, including, but not limited to Mass. R.A.P.
16(a) (6)
(pertinent findings or memorandum of
decision); Mass. R.A.P. 16(e)

record); Mass. R.A.P.
(references to the
(reproduction of statutes,
rules, and regulations); Mass. R.A.P. 16(h)
(length of
briefs); Mass. R.A.P. 19 (appendix to the briefs); and

Mass. R.A.P. 20 (form of briefs, appendices, and other
papers) .
Andrew M. London
37
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Andrew London, hereby certify that on this 7th

day of March 2016, I served two true copies of the
foregoing brief and addendum via hand delivery upon:
Assistant Attorney General Juliana deHaan Rice
Office of the Attorney General
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
Date: March 7, 2016

Andrew M. London
- 38 -
ADDENDUM A
ADD-1
...-....
..
.
uevelopment J;Jrocess
~
The state-led effort to develop the Common Core State Standards was launched in 2009 by state
leaders, including governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states. two territories
corntrlurl . corc-c;t;.:Jic',t<lllCI;JHti.:.:.illiLi;::!Jivc.Lltw.!l. through their membership in the National

Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO). State school chiefs and governors recognized the value of consistent,
real-world learning goals and launched this effort to ensure all students, regardless of where they
live, are graduating high school prepared for college, career, and life.
The standards are informed by:
The best state standards already in existence

The experience of teachers, content experts, states, and leading thinkers
Jllc
fuLl li:,l
(Jl < rilc"tid
t.I)_L;dJo dfvrJqp the
'~1.-HlcLucJ';,
jc, ,wailz-1blc her (
01l. i.j J:/ /vVVYY..\Lfili"C''::.l'c'!lldJtTi'..JJI[lS.SCt:,/Cii lcri.;uHJU.
Timeline for the Development of College- and Career-Readiness

Standards and K-12 Standards
State education standards have been around since the early 1990s. By the early 2000s, eve1ry state
had developed and adopted its own learning standards that specify what students in grades 3-8 and
high school should be able to do. Every state also had its own definition of proficiency, which is the
!eve! at vvh!ch a student is determined to be sufficiently educated at each grade level and upon
graduation. This lack of standardization was one reason why states decided to develop the
Common Core State Standards in 2009.
The development of the Common Core State Standards is a success story of meaningful. state-led
change to help all students succeed.
During the development process, the standards were divided into two categories:
ADD-2
First, the college- and career-readiness standards, which address what students are
expected to know and understand by the time they graduate from high school
Second, the K-12 standards, which address expectations for elementary school through high
school
The college- and career-readiness standards were developed first and then incorporated into the
K-12 standards in the final version of the Common Core we have today. The National Governors
Association (NGA) and the Council Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) received nearly 10,000
comments on the standards during two public comment periods. Many of the comments from
teachers, parents, school administrators, and other citizens concerned with education policy helped
shape the final version of the standards.
Teachers played a critical role in development

The Common Core State Standards drafting process relied on teachers and standards experts from
across the country. Teachers were involved in the development process in four ways:
1)
They served on the Work Groups and Feedback Groups for the ELA and math standards.
)) The National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT),

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), and National Council of Teachers of
English (NCTE), among other organizations were instrumental in bringing together
teachers to provide specific, constructive feedback on the standards
n Teachers were members of teams states convened to provide regular feedback on drafts of
the standards.
11)
Teachers provided input on the Common Core State Standards during the two public
comment periods.
Complete Timeline
NOVEMBER 2007:
State chiefs discuss developing common standards during CCSSO's Annual Policy Forum in
Columbus, Ohio.
ADD-3
2008 ()
...............
'ln08
DE,..E'-ADI:'R
"""
...,
NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve release Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students
Receive a World-Class EducatiQJl1htttJ~[/wwvy_,eclweek.org/media/benchmakring for
success dec 2008 final.pdf). The report, guided by an advisory group that included
governors, state education chiefs, and leading education researchers, recommended states
"upgrade state standards by adopting a common core of internationally benchmarked
standards in math and language arts for grades K-12 to ensure that students are equipped
with the necessary knowledge and skills to be globally competitive."
2009 ()
APRIL2009:
NGA and CCSSO convene governors' education policy advisors and chief state school
officers in Chicago to discuss creation of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. As a
result, NGA and CCSSO invite states to commit to a process to develop common standards
in English language arts/literacy and mathematics. Based on the interest from states, work
to develop the standards commenced.
MAY2009:
Development begins on the college and career ready standards to address what students
are expected to know and understand by the time they graduate from high school.
Following that work, an initial feedback group receives the first draft of college and career
readiness graduation standards for review.
JUNE2009:
CCSSO and NGA announce (http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/newsrel eases/QQg_<;;_2009/ col2 -<;:Q.D.t~JJtlm_SliD.- content-! LsJ;/ti tl <:: forty-ni ne-st9tes- <:11JS:i:
territories-join-common-core-standards-initiative.htmll commitment from governors and

chief state school officers from 49 states and territories to participate in a state-led
process to develop common standards in for English language arts/literacy and
mathematics. By September, the finally tally will include 51 states and territories.
JULY2009:
States and feedback group
(http://www.nga.orgLfilf:;s/li~r;L.sJte~LbLG!VJ:!I~'~.b2.dfL20lOCOMMO~CQREI<l2IC.AtdJ?.C!1}
provide further guidance to CCSSO and NGA on draft college and career readiness
standards.
ADD-4
SUMMER 2009:
To prepare to develop the grade by grade standards based on the college and career
readiness standards, steps are taken to organize the development and review process.
Formal work groups and feedback groups
(http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/2010COMMONCOREK:l2TEAM.PDF)
are created to develop and review the K-12 standards. Teachers were involved in the work
groups and at every stage of review.
SEPTEMBER 2009:
NGA and CCSSO release (http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-
releasesLp<Jge 2009/co12-contentLm~in-c_ont~nt::HsJLt.Ltle common-core-state-st<Jndardsavailable-for-comment.htmD for public comment a draft of college and career ready
standards (a product of input from the standards' writing team, state education agency
leaders, and a panel of outside education experts and practitioners). Nearly 1,000
responses, summarized here
(http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CorePublicFeedback.pdf), were received from
educators and the public.
OCTOBER 2009:
States and feedback group provide additional comments. A validation committee

(http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CommonCoreReport 6.10.pdf), formed earlier in
the year to provide independent, expert validation of the process of identify Common Core
State Standards, comments on college and career readiness standards.
NOVEMBER 2009:
First draft of the K-12 grade by grade college and career readiness standards is released
for comment by chiefs and other state education agency staff (the states). This draft - the
college and career readiness standards - is incorporated into the grade by grade standards
and are now known as the "K-12 grade by grade college and career readiness standards."
DECEMBER 2009:
Validation committee provides edits and feedback on draft of K-12 grade by grade college
.,..,._...J ,_...., ..... _......_ .......... ,... .... ....J:---4""
,..+---i- ... ......1,u;,,
diiU \....ell t::CI I CciUIIIC;);:, ;:)LciiiUcll
JANUARY 2010:
CCSSO and NGA request states' feedback on a revised draft of the K-12 grade by grade
college and career readiness standards. Several independent reviews of the standards
begin.
ADD-S
FEBRUARY 2010:
Revised version of K-12 grade by grade college and career readiness standards distributed
to states.
MARCH2010:
CCSSO and NGA release (http://www.nga.org/cms/homejnews-room/news-
releases/page 20 10/col2-content/mZli n-cpnimlt-1 istltit!e cl raft- k-12-cornmon-core-stat(?.standards-available-for-comment.htmll draft K-12 grade by grade college and career
readiness standards for public comment on www.corestandards.org
(http:Uwww.corestandards.org/). Educators and members of the public provide comments,
summarized h~r.!=_(bttp_;.LL_w\IYW,.,S:orcstanc!ards_,org/0.ssets/k-12-feedback-summary,pd)1.
JUNE2010:
NGA and CCSSO release (http:Uwww.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/newsreleases/page 2010/col2-conteo1Lmain-content-listLtitle national-governors-association-
il!J..d..:state-educ.ation-chiefs-l_aun<;.h-cornrnon-state-academic-standards.htrnl)_ the final

Common Core State Standards.
CCSSO and NGA release report

{http:Uwww.corestandards.org/assets/CommonCoreReport 6.10.pdf) summarizing the
work of the validation committee, which reviewed the standards and found them:
Reflective of the core knowledge and skills in ELA and mathematics that students need
to be college- and career-ready;
Appropriate in terms of their level of clarity and specificity;
Comparable to the expectations of other leading nations;
Informed by available research or evidence;
The result of processes that reflect best practices for standards development;
A solid starting point for adoption of cross-state common core standards; and
A sound basis for eventual development of standards-based assessments.
011 ()
States and territories undergo their own processes for reviewing, adopting, and (in some
states) ratifying the adoption of the Common Core State Standards. In each case, after
reviewing the new standards, state boards of education members, governors, legislators,
and/or chief state school officers took action to replace their existing standards with the
ADD-6
2012 ()
States and territories undergo their own processes for reviewing, adopting, and (in some
states) ratifying the adoption of the Common Core State Standards. In each case, after
reviewing the new standards, state boards of education members, governors, legislators,
and/or chief state school officers took action to replace their existing standards with the
2013 ()
As of December 2013, 45 states, the Department of Defense Education Activity,
Washington D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands have
adopted the CCSS in ELA/literacy and math. They are now in the process of implementing
the standards locally.
2014 ()
As of June 2014, 43 states, the Department of Defense Education Activity, Washington
D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands have adopted the
CCSS in ELA/Iiteracy and math. They are now in the process of implementing the standards
locally.
2015 ()
As of August 2015,42 states (http:ljwww.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state), the
Department of Defense Education Activity, Washington D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana
Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands have adopted the CCSS in ELA/Iiteracy and math. They
are now in the process of implementing the standards locally.
Adoption
Once the development process concluded, states began voluntarily adopting
(http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/) the Common Core State SLam.ldr cb
based on their existing process for education standard adoption. In most states, the state school
board members formally adopted the standards. In others, the decision was made or ratified by the
state superintendent of education, State Legislature, or governor.
ADD-7
Today, 42 states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense
Education Activity (DoDEA) have adopted the Common Core and are implementing the standards
according to their ovvn timelines. To !earn more about the standards in your state and for
information on how states that adopted the Common Core are implementing them, visit the
"~)t<:Hl.C:..i;;U cis it) YcnJr S! ;]I~," lhttp://vvww.uJtTSl<:lJlLhll cJr:,.s:):p/st iincbrds-in-vour-st;:1tcLL section.
ADD-8
ADDENDUM B
ADD-9
Frequently Asked Questions

The following provides answers to some of the frequently asked questions about the Common Core
State Standards, from how they were developed to what they mean for states and local communities.
Overview
What are educational standards?
Educational standards are the learning goals for what students should know and be able to do at each
grade level. Educational standards help teachers ensure their students have the skills and knowledge
they need to be successful, while also helping parents understand what is expected of their children.
What is the Common Core?

State education chiefs and governors in 48 states came together to develop the Common Core, a set of
clear college- and career-ready standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language
arts/literacy and mathematics. Today, 43 states have voluntarily adopted and are working to implement
the standards, which are designed to ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to
take credit bearing introductory courses in two- or four-year college programs or enter the workforce.
Who led the development of the Common Core State Standards?

The nation's governors and education commissioners, through their representative organizations, the
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO), !ed the development of the Common Core State Standards and continue to lead the
initiative. Teachers, parents, school administrators, and experts from across the country, together with
state leaders, provided input into the development of the standards.
The actual implementation of the Common Core, including how the standards are taught, the curriculum
deveioped, and the materials used to support teachers as they help students reach the standards, is led
entirely at the state and local levels.
Were teachers involved in the creation of the standards?

Yes, teachers have been a critical voice in the development of the standards. The Common Core drafting
process relied on teachers and standards experts from across the country. The National Education
Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM), and National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), among other organizations, were
instrumental in bringing together teachers to provide specific, constructive feedback on the standards.
Why ore the Common Core State Standards important?

High standards that are consistent across states provide teachers, parents, and students with a set of
clear expectations to ensure that all students have the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in
college, career, and life upon graduation from high school, regardless of where they live. These
standards are aligned to the expectations of colleges, workforce training programs, and employers. The
standards promote equity by ensuring all students are well prepared to collaborate and compete with
their peers in the United States and abroad. Unlike previous state standards, which varied widely from
state to state, the Common Core enables collaboration among states on a range of tools and policies,
including the:
Page 1
ADD-10
Development of textbooks, digital media, and other teaching materials

Development and implementation of common comprehensive assessment systems that replace
existing state testing systems in order to measure student performance annually and provide
teachers with specific feedback to help ensure students are on the path to success
Development of tools and other supports to help educators and schools ensure all students are
able to learn the new standards
Who was involved in the development of the Common Core State Standards?
States across the country collaborated with teachers, researchers, and leading experts to design and
develop the Common Core State Standards. Each state independently made the decision to adopt the
Common Core. Local teachers, principals, and superintendents lead the implementation of the Common
Core in their states. The federal government was not involved in the development of the standards.
What guidance do the Common Core State Standards provide to teachers?

The Common Core State Standards are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for the knowledge
and skills students need in English language arts and mathematics at each grade level so they can be
prepared to succeed in college, career, and life. The standards establish what students need to learn,
but they do not dictate how teachers should teach. Teachers will devise their own lesson plans and
curriculum, and tailor their instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.
How do the Common Core State Standards compare to previous state education standards?
The Common Core was developed by building on the best state standards in the United States;
examining the expectations of other high-performing countries around the world; and carefully studying
the research and literature available on what students need to know and be able to do to be successful
in college, career, and life. No state was asked to lower their expectations for students in adopting the
Common Core. The evidence-based standards were developed in consultation with teachers and parents
from across the country, so they are also realistic and practical for the classroom.
How much will it cost states to implement the Common Core State Standards?
Costs for implementing the standards will vary from state to state and territory. While states already
spend significant amounts of money on professional development, curriculum materials, and
assessments, there will be some additional costs associated with the Common Core, such as training
teachers to teach the standards, developing and purchasing new materials, and other aspects of
implementation. However, there are also opportunities for states to save considerable resources by
using technology, open-source materials, and taking advantage of cross-state opportunities that come
from sharing consistent standards.
What is the appropriate way to cite the Common Core State Standards?
Authors: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers
Title: Common Core State Standards (insert specific content area if you are using only one)
Publisher: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers, VVashingtoii D.C.

Copyright Date: 2010
For more information, please visit our pages for Developers & Publishers, Terms of Use, and Public
1-:i_c_gQ?_~.
Page
ADD-11
Process
What makes this process different from other efforts to create common standards?
From the very beginning, the process of developing the Common Core has been bipartisan and state led.
It also has support from educators, policymakers, and business leaders across the country, including
CCSSO, the NG.A Center, Achieve, Inc., ACT, the College Board, the National Association of State Boards
of Education, the Alliance for Excellent Education, the Hunt Institute, the National Parent Teacher
Association, the State Higher Education Executive Officers, the American Association of School
Administrators, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable.
What evidence and criteria were used to develop the standards?

The standards made careful use of a large and growing body of evidence, including:
Scholarly research
Surveys on the skills required of students entering college and workforce training programs
Assessment data identifying college- and career-ready performance

Comparisons to standards from high-performing states and nations
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) frameworks in reading and writing for
English language arts
Findings from Trends in International Mathematics and Science (TIMSS) and other studies,
which conclude that the traditional U.S. mathematics curriculum must become substantially
more coherent and focused in order to improve student achievement
The following criteria guided the development of the standards:
= Alignment with expectations for college and career success
Clarity
Consistency across all states
Inclusion of content and the application of knowledge through high-order skills
Improvement upon current state standards and standards of top-performing nations
Reality-based for effective use in the classroom
Evidence- and research-based
What role did international benchmarking play in the development of the standards?
International benchmarking refers to analyzing high-performing education systems and identifying ways
to improve our own system based on those findings. One of the ways to analyze education systems is to
compare international assessments, particularly the Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Prior to the development of
the Common Core State Standards, research revealed striking similarities among the standards in topperforming nations, along with stark differences between those world-class expectations and the
standards adopted by most U.S. states. As a result, standards from top-performing countries were
consulted during the development of the Common Core State Standards. The college- and career-ready
standards appendix lists the evidence consulted.
What grade levels are included in the Common Core State Standards?
The English language arts and math standards are for grades K-12. Research from the early childhood
and higher education communities also informed the development of the standards.
Page 3
ADD-12
}COMMON CORE
What does this work mean for students with disabilities and English language learners?
The Common Core State Standards give states the opportunity to share experiences and best practices,
which can lead to an improved ability to serve young people with disabilities and English language
learners. Additionally, the standards include information on application for these groups of students.
Why are the Common Core State Standards only for English language arts and math?
English language arts and math were the subjects chosen for the Common Core State Standards because
they are areas upon which students build skill sets that are used In other subjects. Students must learn
to read, write, speak, listen, and use language effectively in a variety of content areas, so the standards
specify the literacy skills and understandings required for college and career readiness In multiple
disciplines.
It is important to note that the literacy standards in history/social studies, science, and technical
subjects for grades 6-12 are meant to supplement content standards in those areas, not replace them.
States determine how to incorporate these standards into their standards for those subjects or adopt
them as content area literacy standards.
Are there plans to develop common standards in other areas in the future?
CCSSO and NGA are not leading the development of standards in other academic content areas. Below is
information on efforts of other organizations to develop standards In other academic subjects.
Science: States have developed Next Generation Science Standards in a process managed by
Achieve, wit~ the help of the National Research Council, the National Science Teachers
Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. More
information about this effort can be found here.
World languages: The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages published an
alignment of the National Standards for Learning Languages with the ELA Common Core
State Standards. More information about this effort can be found here.
Arts: The National Coalition for Core Arts Standards is leading the revision of the National
Standards for Arts Education. More information about this effort can be found here.
Implementation and Future Work

What do the Common Core State Standards mean for students?
Today's students are preparing to enter a world in which colleges and businesses are demanding more
than ever before. To ensure all students are prepared for success after graduation, the Common Core
establishes a set of clear, consistent guidelines for what students should know and be able to do at each
grade level in math and English language arts.
How do the Common Core State Standards impact teachers?

The standards impact teachers by:
Providing them with consistent goals and benchmarks to ensure students are progressing on
a path for success in coUege, career, and Hfe
Providing them with consistent expectations for students who move into their districts and
classrooms from other states
"
Providing them the opportunity to collaborate with teachers across the country as they
develop curricula, materials, and assessments linked to high-quality standards
,. Helping colleges and professional development programs better prepare teachers
Page 4
ADD-13
What supports are being provided to teachers to help them ensure students are prepared to reach the
new goals established by the Common Core?
Decisions on how to implement the standards, including the right supports to put in place, are made at
the state and local levels. As such, states and localities are taking different approaches to implementing
the standards and providing their teachers with the supports they need to help students successfully
reach the standards. To learn how states are supporting teachers and implementing their new
standards, visit the ~'Standards in Your State" section for a map linking to the state-specific
implementation page.
Do the standards tell teachers what to teach?
Teachers know best about what works in the classroom. That is why these standards establish what
students need to learn, but do not dictate how teachers should teach. Instead, schools and teachers
decide how best to help students reach the standards.
Who will manage the Common Core State Standards in the future?
The Common Core State Standards are and will remain a state-led effort, and adoption of the standards
and any potential revisions will continue to be a voluntary state decision. The National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers will continue to serve
as the two leading organizations with ownership of the Common Core and will make decisions about the
timing and substance of future revisions to the standards in consultation with the states.
Federal funds have never and will never be used to support the development or governance ofthe
Common Core or any future revisions of the standards. Any future revisions will be made based on
research and evidence. Governance of the standards will be independent of governance of related
assessments.
Will common assessments be developed?
Two state-led consortia, Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and
the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balanced), are currently working to develop
assessments that aim to provide meaningful feedback to ensure that students are progressing tmr;ard
attaining the necessary skills to succeed in college, career, and life. These assessments are expected to
be available in the 2014-2015 school year. Most states have chosen to participate in one of the two
consortia. For more information, visit the website of your state's assessment consortium.
Two additional consortia, working through the National Center and State Collaborative Partnership and
the Dynamic Learning Maps Alternative Assessment System Consortium, are developing a new
generation of assessments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Will CCSSO and the NGA Center be creating common instructional materials and curricula?
No. The standards are not curricula and do not mandate the use of any particular curriculum. Teachers
are able to develop their own lesson plans and choose materials, as they have always done. States that
have adopted the standards may choose to work together to develop instructional materials and
curricula. As states work individually to implement their new standards, publishers of instructional
materials and experienced educators will develop new resources around these shared standards.
Are there data collection requirements associated with the Common Core State Standards?
No. Implementing the Common Core State Standards does not require data collection. Standards define
expectations for what students should know and be able to do by the end of each grade. The means of
Page 5
ADD-14
COMMON CORE
assessing students and the data that result from those assessments are up to the discretion of each
state and are separate and unique from the Common Core.
Content and Quality of the Standards

Do the Common Core State Standards incorporate both content and skills?
Yes. In English language arts, the standards require certain critical content for all students, including:
Classic myths and stories from around the world
America's founding documents
Foundational American literature

Shakespeare
The remaining crucial decisions about what content should be taught are made at the state and local
levels. In addition to content coverage, the Common Core State Standards require that students
systematically acquire knowledge in literature and other disciplines through reading, writing, speaking,
and listening.
In mathematics, the standards lay a solid foundation in:
Whole numbers
Addition
Subtraction
Multiplication
Division
Fractions
Decimals
Taken together, these elements support a student's ability to learn and apply more demanding math
concepts and procedures. The middle school and high school standards call on students to practice
applying mathematical ways of thinking to real-world issues and challenges.
Across the English language arts and mathematics standards, skills critical to each content area are
emphasized. In particular, problem-solving, collaboration, communication, and critical-thinking skills are
interwoven into the standards.
How complex are the texts suggested by the English language arts standards?
The Common Core State Standards create a staircase of increasing text,complexity, so that students are
expected to both develop their skills and apply them to more and more complex texts. For example, the
English language arts standards suggest "Grapes of Wrath" as a text that would be appropriate for 9th
or lOth grade readers. For more information on suggested texts, please see Appendix A, the Supplement
to Appendix A, and Appendix B.
Do the Eng!fsh language arts standards include a required reading list?
No. The Common Core State Standards include sample texts that demonstrate the level of text
complexity appropriate for the grade level and compatible with the learning demands set out in the
standards. The exemplars of high-quality texts at each grade level provide a rich set of possibilities. This
ensures teachers have the flexibility to make their own decisions about what texts to use, while
providing an excellent reference point when selecting their texts.
Page 6
ADD-15
What types of texts are recommended for the English language arts standards?
The Common Core State Standards require certain critical content for all students. in addition to content
coverage, the standards require that students systematically acquire knowledge in literature and other
disciplines through reading, writing, speaking, and listening. English teachers will still teach their
students the literature and literary nonfiction texts that they choose. However, because college and
career readiness overwhelmingly focuses on complex texts outside of literature, these standards also
ensure students are being prepared to read, write, and research across the curriculum, including in
history and science.
Why is the sequence of key math topics in the math standards important?
The mathematical progressions, or sequencing of topics, presented in the Common Core State Standards
are coherent and based on evidence. Part of the problem with having many different sets of state
standards was that different states covered different topics at different grade levels. Coming to a
consensus on the standards guarantees that, from the viewpoint of any given state, topics will move up
or down in a consistent grade level sequence. What is important to keep in mind is that the progression
in the Common Core is mathematically coherent and leads to college and career readiness at an
internationally competitive level.
Page 7
ADD-16
ADDENDUM C
ADD-17
MASSACHUSETTS
CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK
FOR
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS AND LITERA~CY
Grades Pre-Kindergarten to 12
ro
rl
Incorporating the Common Core State Standards

for English Language Arts and
literacy in History/Social Studie~s, Science, and Technical Subje(~ts
March 2011
EDUCATION
0
0
,::C
EDUCATION
This document was prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D. Commissioner
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Members

Dr. Jeff Howard, Reading
Ms. Maura Banta, Chair, Melrose
Ms. Ruth Kaplan, Brookline
Ms. Hameen Chernow, Vice Chair, Jamaica Plain
Dr. Jim McDermott, Eastham
Dr. Vanessa Calderon-Rosado, Boston
Dr. Dana Mahler-Faria, Bridgewater
Mr. Gerald Chertavian, Cambridge
Mr. Paul Reville, Secretary of Education, Worcester
Mr. Michael D'Ortenzio, Jr., Chair, Student Advisory Council, Wellesley
Ms. Beverly Holmes, Springfield
01
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed. D., Commissioner and Secretary to the Board
,....;
The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, an affirmative action employer. is committed to ensuring that all of its programs and facilities are
accessible to all members of the public. We do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
Inquiries regarding the Department's compliance with Title IX and other civil rights laws may be directed to
the Human Resources Director, 75 Pleasant St, Malden, MA, 02148, 781-338-6105.
2011 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Permission is hereby granted to copy any or all parts of this doc:ument for non-commercial
educational purposes. Please credit the "Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education." This document is printed on recycled paper.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906
Phone 781~338-3000 TrY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439~2370
www.doe.mass.edu
0
0
.:t:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Commissioner's Letter .. .......................................................................................
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................
Introduction ...................................................... ..
.................... ii
'"" .. iii
........................... ...... ......................... .................... ::.-.:::..__:...:::.:::.-.::...!
Key Design Considerations for the Standards

What is Not Covered by the Standards
Guiding Principles for English Language Arts and Literacy Programs in Massachusetts ............................................................. ..
Student Who are College and Career Ready .................................................................................................................................
.... 6
.... 7
..... 9
Standards Organization and Key Features
..10
c.;rades Pre-K-5
Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects
Reading ................................................................................................................................................................................13
Literature ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
lnfonnational Text .................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Foundational Skills .................................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Writing .................................................................................................................................................................................23
Speaking and Listening ......................................................................................................................"............................... 29
Language ............................................................................................................................................................................33
~:;rades
6--12
Standards for English Language Arts
Reading ...............................................................................................................................................................................47
Literature ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48
lnfonnational Text ................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Writing ........................................................................................,......................................................................................,. .. 53
Speaking and Listening ......................................................................................................................................................60
Language .............................................................................................................................................................................64
Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science 1 and Technical Subjects

Reading .................................................................................................................................................................................73
History/Social Studies ............................................................................................................................................................................. 74
Science and Technical Subjects ............................................................................................................................................................ 75
Writing .................................................................................................................................................................................76
Application of Common Core State Standards for English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities ........... ................................. 81
Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................................................-- ................................. 85
1'::;/ossary .....................................................................................................................................................................................................92
A Literary Heritage: Suggested Authors, Illustrators, and Works from the Ancient World to About 1970 .................................................... 105
A Literary Heritage: Suggested Contemporary Authors and Illustrators; Suggested Authors in World Literature ........................................ 114
Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts and Literacy, March 201.1
0
N
0
0
,::r;
Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-4906
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.
Commissioner
March 2011
Dear Colleagues,
I am pleased to present to you the Massachusetts Curriculum

Framework for English Language Arts and Literacy adopted by the
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education in December 2010.
This framework merges the Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and
Technical Subjects with additional Massachusetts standards and other
features. These pre-kindergarten to grade 12 standards are based on

research and effective practice, and will enable teachers and
administrators to strengthen curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
In partnership with the Department of Early Education and Care (EEC),
we supplemented the Common Core State Standards with prekindergarten standards that were collaboratively developed by early
childhood educators from the Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education, EEC staff, and early childhood specialists across
the state. These pre-kindergarten standards establish a strong, logical
foundation for the kindergarten standards. The pre-kindergarten
standards were approved by the Board of Early Education and Care in
December 2010.
The comments and suggestions received during revision of the 2001

Massachusetts English Language Arts Framework, as well as
comments on the Common Core State Standards, have strengthened
this framework. I want to thank everyone who worked with us to create
challenging learning standards for Massachusetts students. I am proud
of the work that has been accomplished.
We will continue to collaborate with schools and districts to implement
the 2011 Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language
Arts and Literacy over the next several years, and we encourage your
comments as you use it. All Massachusetts frameworks are subject to
continuous review and improvement, for the benefit of the students of
the Commonwealth.
Thank you again for your ongoing support and for your commitment to
achieving the goals of improved student achievement for all students.
Sincerely,
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed. D.
Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
ii
Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language A 'ts and Literacy, March 2011
.-I
N
0
0
F:t:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Lead Writers
David Coleman Student Achievement Partners, Common Core State Standards
Jim Patterson ACT, Common Core State Standards
Susan Pimentel StandardsWork, Common Core State Standards
Susan Whelt1e Director of Humanities and Literacy, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Massachusetts Contributors, 2007-2010
Sandra Baldner English Department Chairperson, South Shore Vocational
Technical High School
Alfred J. Elird Master Teacher, Science, Charlestown High School, Boston
Jennifer M. Brabander Senior Editor, The Hom Book
Maria Calobrisi Literacy Facilitator, Lawrence Public Schools
Mary Ann Cappiello Assistant Professor, Language and Literacy Division,
School of Education, Lesley University, Cambridge
Valerie Corradino Reading and Language Arts Specialist, Haverhill Public
Schools
Marianne Crowley Department Chair, English, Foxborough Regional Charte)r
School
Martha Curran English Teacher, Natick High School
Ann Deveney English Language Arts Senior Program Director, Boston Public
Schools
Valerie Diggs Library Director, Grades K-12, Chelmsford Public Schools
Lori DiGisi Middle School Reading, Framingham Public Schools
Titus DosRemedios Policy Analyst, Strategies for Children
Eileen Edejer Data Specialist, Boston Public Schools
Megan Farrell Grade 5 Teacher, Oak Bluffs
Jody Figuerido Institute for Education and Professional Development
Elise Frangos Director of English, Masslnsight Education
Janet Furey English Language Arts Consultant, Pathways lnt'l, Concord
Meg Gebhard Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Phyllis Goldstein English Language Arts Liaison, Grades K-12, Worcester
Public Schools
Stephanie Grimaldi Associate Professor, Westfield State College
Holladay Handlin English Language Arts and History/Social Science
Director, Grades 6-8, Watertown Public Schools, retired
Cynthia Hardaker-Biouin Grade 5 Teacher, Ware Public Schools
Anne Herrington Professor of English, University of Massachusetts
Amherst
Lorretta Holloway Associate Professor of English, Framingham State
College
Gregory Hurray Director of English Language Arts, Newton Public Schools
Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts and Literacy, March 2011
Carolyn A. Joy K-12 Mathematics Leader, Medford Public Schools

Barbara Kozma Education Coordinator, Head Start Progtam, Cap13
Cod Child Development
Stephanie S. Lee Regional Director of Public: Affairs, Verizon
Barbara Mclaughlin Literacy/ELA Senior Program Director, K-5,
Boston Public Schools
Eileen Mc:Quaid Middle School Department Head, English Langua1ge
Arts, Brockton Public Schools
Cynthia Maxfield Early Childhood Coordinator, Nashoba Regional
School District
Mary Mindness Professor, Lesley University
Kathleen Moore Grade 8 English Teacher and Curriculum Leader,
Carver Public Schools
LauriA. Murphy Youth Programs Coordinat;or, The Career Place
Middlesex Community College
Beverly Nelson Assistant Superintendent, Medford Public Schools
Thomas O'Toole Director of English grades 6-12, Waltham Public
Schools
Martha V. Parravano Executive Editor, The Hom Book
Rosemary Penkala English Teacher, Smith Vocational & AgricultL!ral
High School, Northampton
Bruce Penniman Director, Western Massacihusetts Writing Project
and English Instructor, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Sandy Putnam-Franklin Early childhood consultant
Frank Reece Founder, Human Capital Education, Cambridge
Danika Ripley Grade 3 Teacher Chelsea Public Schools
Maryanne Rogers School Committee Chair, Weston Public Schoc>ls
Jane Rosenzweig Director of the Harvard College Writing Center,
Harvard University, Cambridge
Ben Russell Assistant Director of Early Childhood Education, Boston
Public Schools
Jay Simmons Professor, Language Arts and Literacy, University c>f
Massachusetts Lowell
Roger Sutton Editor in Chief, The Hom Book
Chris Tolpa English Language Arts Director, Westfield Public Schools
Schools
0-J
0-J
0
0
,:::C
jji
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Massachusetts Contributors, 2007-2010 (cont'd.)
Shannon Ventresca Grade 7 Science Teacher, Stoughton Public Schools
Henry Venuti Department Chair, English, Georgetown Middle High School
George T. Viglirolo English teacher, Brookline High School, retired
KathyAnn Voltoline English Teacher, Grade 7, Pittsfield Public Schools
John M. Wands Department Head, English, Cohasset Middle High School, retired
Lisa White English Language Arts Coordinator, Grades K-12, Plymouth Public Schools
Writers of the 1997 and 2001 Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Frameworks and the 2004 Supplement
Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Janet McKeon
Sherri Killins, Commissioner
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of Literacy and Humanities
Alice Barton
David Buchanan
Jennifer Butler O'Toole
Mary Ellen Caesar
Amy Carithers
Elizabeth Davis
Kevin Dwyer
Dorothy Earle
Susan Kazeroid
Marybeth Keane
Cheryl Liebling
Kathleen Lord
Joan McNeil
Jennifer Malonson
Nicole Mancevice
Tracey Martineau
Lurline Muiioz-Bennett
Anne G. O'Brien
Elizabeth Niedzwiecki
Laurie Slobody
Office of Science. Technology, and Mathematic!a

Jacob Foster
Roxane Johnson De Lear
Barbara Libby
Sharyn Sweeney
Emily Veader
(Y)
Office of Special Education, Policy, and Planning_

EmilyCaille
Shawn Connolly
Madeline Levine
Office of Student Assessment
Pam Spagnoli
Office of Student Support
Min-Hua Chen
Donna Traynham
Julia Phelps, Associate Commissioner, Curricu!Jm and Instruction
Jeffrey Nellhaus, Deputy Commissioner
Copyeditor
Gayla Morgan
';v
Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Ats and Literacy, March 2011
0
0
,::r;
-1
:::0
0
0
()
-1
ADD-24
ADD-25
In :2007 the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education convened a team of educators to revise its existing 2001 English
Language Arts Curriculum Framework and, when the Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA)
bt3gan a multi-state standards development project called the Common
Core State Standards initiative in 2009, the two efforts merged. The
Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in
History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects were adopted by
the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on July
21, 2010.
Unique Massachusetts Standards and Features
The Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts and
Literacy presents both the Common Core State Standards and standards
and features, identified by an "MA" preceding the standard number, that are
unique to Massachusetts. These unique elements include standards for prekindergartners; expansions of the Common Core's glossary and
bibliography; and two sections that suggest appropriate classic and
contemporary authors for different grade-level ranges.
Staff at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education worked closely with the Common Core writing team to ensure
that these Massachusetts standards and features were academically
rigorous, comprehensive, and organized in ways to make them useful for
tE~achers. The pre-kindergarten standards were adopted by the
Massachusetts Board of Early Education and Care on December 14, 2010.
The additional standards and features were adopted by the Massachusetts
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on December 21, 2010.
The Massachusetts Pre-Kindemarten Standards
The Massachusetts pre-kindergarten standards are guideposts to facilitate
young children's understanding of the world of language and literature,
writers and illustrators, books and libraries. The preschool/pre-kindergarten
population includes children from the age of 2 years, 9 months until they are
kindergarten-eligible. A majority attend education programs in diverse
settings--community-based early care and education centers, family child
care, Head Start, and public preschools. Some children do not attend any
formal program. In this age group, the foundations of reading, writing,
speaking and listening, and language development are formed during
children's conversations and informal dramatics, while learning songs and
poems, and from experiences with real objects, as well as while listening to
c:tnd "reading" books on a variety of subjects.
The Massachusetts pre-kindergarten standards atpply to children who c:tre at

the end of this age group, meaning older four- and younger five-year aids.
The standards-which correspond with the learning activities in the
Massachusetts Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences (2003)--can
be promoted through almost all daily activities, from play and exploration
activities to talking about picture books, and should not be limited to
"reading time."
Breadth of the Pre-K to Grade 12 Standards

The standards in this Framework set requirements not only for English
language arts (ELA) but also for literacy in history/social studies, scien<:e,
and technical subjects. Just as students must leatrn to read, write, spea.k,
listen, and use language effectively in a variety of content areas, so too
must the standards specify the literacy skills and understandings required
for college and career readiness in multiple disciplines. Literacy standards
for grade 6 and above are predicated on teachers of ELA, history/socictl
studies, science, and technical subjects using thE~ir content area expertise to
help students meet the particular challenges of mading, writing, speaking,
listening, and language in their respective fields. It is important to note that
the 6-12 literacy standards in history/social studies, science, and technical
subjects are not meant to replace content standairds in those areas bul
rather to supplement them.
\.()
0J
I
0
The Literate .Person of the Twenty-First Century
,:::C
As a natural outgrowth of meeting the charge to define college and career

readiness, the standards also lay out a vision of 'illhat it means to be a
literate person in this century. Indeed, the skills and understandings
students are expected to demonstrate have wide: applicability outside the
classroom or workplace. Students who meet the standards readily
undertake the close, attentive reading that is at the heart of understanding
and enjoying complex works of literature. They habitually perform the critical
reading necessary to pick carefully through the staggering amount of
information available today in print and digitally. They actively seek the
wide, deep, and thoughtful engagement with high-quality literary and
informational texts that builds knowledge, enlarges expt3rience, and
broadens worldviews. They reflexively demonstrate the cogent reasoning
and use of evidence that is essential to both private deliberation and
responsible citizenship in a democratic republic. Students who meet the
standards develop the skills in reading, writing, speaking, and listening that
are the foundation for any creative and purposeful expression in language.

College and Career Readiness (CCR) and Grade-Specific Standards
The CCR standards anchor the document and define general, crossdisciplinary literacy expectations that must be met for students to be
prepared to enter college and workforce training programs ready to
succeed. The pre-k-12 grade-specific standards define end-of-year
expectations and a cumulative progression designed to enable students
to meet college and career readiness expectations no later than the end
of high school. The CCR and high school (grades 9-12) standards work
in tandem to define the college and career readiness line--the former
providing broad standards, the latter providing additional specificity.
Hence, both should be considered when developing college and career
readiness assessments. Students advancing through the grades are
expected to meet each year's grade-specific standards, retain or further
develop skills and understandings mastered in preceding grades, and
work steadily toward meeting the more general expectations described
by the CCR standards.
Grade Levels for Pre-K-8; Grade Bands for 9-10 and 11-12
The standards use individual grade levels in pre-kindergarten through
grade 8 to provide useful specificity; the standards use two-year bands in
grades 9-12 to allow schools, districts, and states flexibility in high
school course design.
A Focus on Results rather than Means
The standards leave room for teachers, curriculum developers, and
states to determine how students will demonstrate that they have met the
standards and what additional topics should be addressed. The
standards do not mandate such components as a particular writing
process or the full range of metacognitive strategies that students may
need to monitor and direct their thinking and leaming. Teachers are thus
free to provide students with the tools and knowledge their professional
judgment and experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals
set out in the standards.
An Integrated Model of Literacy
Although the standards are divided into Reading, Writing, Speaking and
Listening, and Language strands for conceptual clarity, the processes of
communication are closely connected, as reflected throughout this
document. For example. Writing standard 9 requires that students be
able to write about what they read. Likewise, Speaking and Listening
standard 4 sets the expectation that students will share findings from
their research.
4
Research and Media Skills Blended into the Standards as a Whole

To be ready for college, workforce training, and life in a technological
society, students need the ability to gather, comprehend, evaluate.
synthesize, and report on information and ideas; to conduct original
research in order to answer questions or solve problems; and to analyze
and create a high volume and extensive range of print and nonprint texts
in media forms old and new. The need to conduct research and to
produce and consume media is embedded into every aspect of today's
curriculum. In like fashion, research and media :;kills and understandings
are embedded throughout the standards rather than treated in a
separate section.
Focus and Coherence in Instruction and Ass;essment
While the standards delineate specific expectations in reading, writing,
speaking, listening, and language, each standard need not be a separate
focus for instruction and assessment. Often, several standards can be
addressed by a single rich task. For example, when editing writing,
students address Writing standard 5 {"Develop and strengthen writing as
needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new
approach"} as well as Language standards 1-3 (which deal with
conventions of standard English and knowledge! of language). When
drawing evidence from literary and informational texts according to
Writing standard 9, students are also demonstrating their comprehension
skills in relation to specific standards in Readin~l When discussing
something they have read or written, students are also demonstrating
their speaking and listening skills. The CCR anchor standards
themselves provide another source of focus and coherence.
The same ten CCR anchor standards for Readi ilQ apply to both literary
and informational texts, including texts in history/social studies. science,
and technical subjects. The ten CCR anchor standards for Writing cover
numerous text types and subject areas. This mt~ans that students can
develop mutually reinforcing skills and exhibit mastery of standards for
reading and writing across a range of texts and classrooms.
Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language tl.rts and Literacy, March 2011
r-N
I
Cl
Cl
,:I;

Shared Responsibility for Students' Literacy Development
The standards insist that instruction in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language be a shared responsibility within the sGhool. The pre-k-5
standards include expectations for reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language applicable to a range of subjects, including but not limited to EU\.
The grades 6--12 standards are divided into two sections, one for ELA and the other for history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. This
division reflects the unique, time-honored place of ELA teachers in developing students' literacy skills while at the same time recognizing that teachers in
other areas must have a role in this development as well.
Part of the motivation behind the interdisciplinary approach to literacy promulgated by the standards is extensive research establishing the need for
students who wish to be college and career ready to be proficient in reading complex informational text independently in a variety of content areas. Most of
the required reading in college .:md workforce training programs is informational in structure and challenging in content; postsecondary education prCfjrams
typically provide students with both a higher volume of such reading than is generally required in K-12 schools and comparativoly little scaffolding.
The standards are not alone in calling for a special emphasis on informational text. The 2009 reading framework of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) requires a high and increasing proportion of informational text on its assessment as students advance through the grades.
The standards aim to align instruction with this framework so that many more :students than at present can meet the requirements of college and career
madiness. In pre-k-5, the standards follow NAEP's lead in balancing the reading of literature with the reading of informational tl~xts, including texts in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. In accord with NAEP's growing emphasis on informational texts in the hi!~ her grades, the standards
demand that a significant amount of reading of informational texts take place in and outside the ELA classroom. Fulfilling the standards for 6-12 ELA
requires much greater attention to a specific category of informational text-literary nonfiction-than has been traditional. Because the ELA classroom
must focus on literature (stories, drama, and poetry) as well as literary nonfiction, a great deal of informational reading in grades 6-12 must take plac<"l in
other classes if the NAEP assessment framework is to be matched instructionally. To measure students' growth toward college and career readiness.
assessments aligned with the standards should adhere to the distribution of texts across grades cited in the NAEP framework. (In the 2009 NAEP Reading
f:ramework, the distribution of passages at grade 4 is 50% literary, 50% infom1ational; at grade 8, 45% literary and 55% informational; at grade 12, 30%
literary and 70% informational.)
(X)
('.J
0
0
,:::C
NAEP likewise outlines a distribution across the grades of the core purposes and types of student writing. The 2011 NAEP framework. like the standc:1rds,
cultivates the development of three mutually reinforcing writing capacities: writing to persuade, to explain, and to convey real or imagined experience.
Evidence concerning the demands of college and career readiness gathered during development of the standards concurs with NAEP's shifting
E!mphases: standards for grades 9-12 describe writing in all three forms, but, consistent with NAEP, the overwhelming focus of writing throughout high
school should be on arguments and informational/explanatory texts. It follows that writing assessments aligned with the standards should adhere to the
distribution of writing purposes across grades outlined by NAEP. (In the 2011 NAEP Writing Framework, the distribution of communicative purposes at
grade 4 is 30% to persuade, 35% to explain, and 35% to convey experience; oat grade 8. 35% to persuade, 35% to explain, and 30% to convey experience;
cit grade 12,40% to persuade, 40% to explain, and 20% to convey experiencH.)
Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts and Literacy, March 201:1
What is Not Covered by the Standards

The standards should be recognized for what they are not as well as what they are. The most important intentional design limitations are as follows
1. The standards define what all students are expected to know and be able to do, not how teachers should teach. For instance, the use of play with
young children is not specified by the standards, but it is welcome as a valuable activity in its own right and as a way to ht~lp students meet the
expectations in this document. Furthermore, while the standards make references to some particular forms of content, including mythology,
foundational U.S. documents. and Shakespeare, they do not-indeed, cannot-enumerate all or even most of the content that students should
learn. The standards must therefore be complemented by a well-developed, content-rich curriculum consistent with the expectations laid out in this
document.
2.
While the standards focus on what is most essential, they do not describe all that can or should be taught. A great deal is left to the discretion of
teachers and curriculum developers. The aim of the standards is to articulate the fundamentals, not to set out an exhaust,ve list or a set of
restrictions that limits what can be taught beyond what is specified herein.
3.
The standards do not define the nature of advanced work for students who meet the standards prior to the end of high sc1ool. For those students,
advanced work in such areas as literature, composition, language, and journalism should be available. This work should provide the next logical
step up from the college and career readiness baseline established here.
4.
The standards set grade-specific standards but do not define the intervention methods or materials necessary to support students who are well
below or well above grade-level expectations. No set of grade-specific standards can fully reflect the great variety in abilities, needs, learning
rates, and achievement levels of students in any given classroom. However, the standards do provide clear signposts along the way to the goal of
college and career readiness for all students.
5.
It is also beyond the scope of the standards to define the full range of supports appropriate for English language learners and for students with
special needs. At the same time, all students must have the opportunity to learn and meet the same high standards if they are to access the
knowledge and skills necessary in their post-high school lives.
Each grade will include students who are still acquiring English. For those students, it is possible to meet the standards in reading, writing,
speaking, and listening without displaying near-native control of conventions, pronunciation, and vocabulary.
The standards should also be read as allowing for the widest possible range of students to participate fully from the outSE!t and as permitting
appropriate accommodations to ensure maximum participation of students with special education needs. For example. for students with disabilities
reading should allow for the use of Braille, screen-reader technology, or other assistive devices, while writing should include the use of a scribe,
computer, or speech-to-text technology. In a similar vein, speaking and listening should be interpreted broadly to include sign language.
6.
While the ELA and content area literacy components described herein are critical to college and career readiness, they do not define the whole of
such readiness. Students require a wide-ranging, rigorous academic preparation and, particularly in the early grades. attontion to such matters as
social, emotional, and physical development and approaches to learning. Similarly, the standards define literacy expecta':ions in history/social
studies, science, and technical subjects, but literacy standards in other areas, such as the arts, mathematics, and health education, modeled on
those in this document are strongly encouraged to facilitate a comprehensive, schoolwide literacy program.
Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language A.rts and Literacy, March 2011
m
N
0
0
Guiding Principles
for English Language Arts and Literacy Programs in Massachusetts
The following principles are philosophical statements that underlie the

standards and resources of this curriculum framework. They should
guide the construction and evaluation of English language arts and
literacy pro~lrams in schools and the broader community.
proficient students apply the critical technique's learned in the study of

exposition to the evaluation of multimedia, teliWision, radio, film/vidt:>o,
and websites. School librarians play a key ro[e in finding books and other
media to match students' interests, and in SU!l9esting further resoul"ces
in public libraries.
Guiding Principle 1
An effective English language arts and literacy curriculum develops
thinking and language together through interactive teaming.
Effective use of language both requires and extends thinking. As
learners listen to a speech, view a documentary, discuss a poem, or
write an essay, they engage in thinking. Students develop their ability to
remember, understand, analyze, evaluate, and apply the ideas they
Emcounter in English language arts and in all the other disciplines when
they read increasingly complex texts and undertake increasingly
challenging assignments that require them to write or speak in response
to what they are learning.
c:;uiding Principle 2
An effective English language arts and literacy curriculum draws on
literature in order to develop students' understanding of their
literary heritage.
American students need to become familiar with works that are part of a
literary tradition going back thousands of years. Students should read
literature reflecting the literary and civic heritage of the English-speaking
world. They also should gain broad exposure to works from the many
communities that make up contemporary America as well as from
countries and cultures throughout the world. In order to foster a love of
reading, English language arts teachers encourage independent reading
within and outside of class.
13uiding Principle 3
An effective English language arts and literacy curriculum draws on
informational texts and multimedia in order to build academic
llocabula!Jr and strong content knowledge.
In all of their classes, including history/social science, science and
technology/engineering, arts, comprehensive health, foreign language,
and vocational and technical subjects, students should encounter many
~~xamples of informational and media texts aligned to the grade or course
eurriculum. This kind of reading, listening, and viewing is the key to
building a ~ich academic vocabulary and increasing knowledge about the
world. Each kind of print or media text has its unique characteristics, and
---------------"'------------" ------------
Guiding Principle 4
An effective English language arts and literacy curriculum develops
students' oral language and literacy throu!gh appropri.ately
challenging teaming.
Reading to and conversing with preschool and primary grade children
plays an especially critical role in developing children's vocabulary, their
knowledge of the natural world, and their appreciation for the powe1r of
the imagination. In the primary grades, systematic phonics instructkm
and regular practice in applying decoding skills are essential elements of
the school program. At the middle and high school levels, programs
designed to prepare students for college and careers continue to
emphasize the skills of building knowledge through substantive
conversation, collaboration, and making oral !Presentations that are
adapted to task, purpose, and audience.
0
(Y)
0
0
,::t;
Guiding Principle 5
An effective English language arts and litE~racy curriculum
emphasizes writing arguments, explanatory/informative texts, and
narratives.
At aU levels, students' writing records their imagination, exploration, and
responses to the texts they read. As students attempt to write clearly and
coherently about increasingly complex ideas, their writing serves tc
propel intellectual growth. Through writing, students develop their ability
to think, to communicate and defend ideas, and to create worlds unseen.
A student's writing and speaking voice is an E~xpression of self. Students'
voices tell us who they are, how they think, and what unique
perspectives they bring to their learning. Students' voices develop when
teachers provide opportunities for interaction, exploration, and
communication. When students discuss idea~; and read one anothElr'S
writing, they learn to distinguish between fomnal and informal
communication. They also learn about their classmates as unique
individuals who can contribute their distinctiv1~ ideas, aspirations, and
talents to the class, the school, the communi1y, and the nation.
---~
Guiding Principles
for English Language Arts and Literacy Programs in Massachusetts
Guiding Principle 6
Guiding Principle 9
An effective English language arts and literacy curriculum holds

high expectations for all students.
An effective English language arts and literacy curriculum nurtures

students' sense of their common ground as present or future
American citizens and prepares them to participate responsibly in
our schools and in civic life.
Recognizing that learners are different, teachers differentiate instruction

as students learn to become increasingly independent in reading and
writing complex texts. Effective teachers realize that instruction needs to
be modified for students capable of more advanced work. as well as for
struggling students.
Guiding Principle 7
An effective English language arts curriculum provides explicit skill
instruction in reading and writing.
In some cases, explicit skill instruction is most effective when it precedes
student need. Systematic phonics lessons, in particular decoding skills,
should be taught to students before they use them in their subsequent
reading. Systematic instruction is especially important for those students
who have not developed phonemic awareness-the ability to pay
attention to the component sounds of language. Effective instruction can
take place in small groups, individually, or on a whole class basis. In
other cases, explicit skill instruction is most effective when it responds to
specific problems students reveal in their work.
Guiding Principle 8
An effective English language arts and literacy curriculum builds on
the language, experiences, knowledge, and interests that students
bring to school.
Teachers recognize the importance of being able to respond effectively
to the challenges of linguistic and cultural differences in their classrooms.
They recognize that sometimes students have learned ways of talking,
thinking, and interacting that are effective at home and in their
neighborhood, but which may not have the same meaning or usefulness
in school. Teachers try to draw on these different ways of talking and
thinking as potential bridges to speaking and writing in standard English.
Teachers instruct an increasingly diverse group of students in their

classrooms each year. Students may come from any country or continent
in the world. Taking advantage of this diversity, teachers guide
discussions about the extraordinary variety of b~1iefs and traditions
around the world. At the same time, they providt:l students with common
ground through discussion of significant works in American cultural
history to help prepare them to become self-governing citizens of the
United States of America. An effective English language arts and literacy
curriculum, while encouraging respect for differE!nces in home
backgrounds. can serve as a unifying force in schools and society.
Guiding Principle 10
An effective English language arts and literacy curriculum reaches
out to families and communities in order to sustain a literate
society.
Families and communities play a crucial role in developing young
children's speaking, listening, language, readinfL and writing skills.
Effective literacy programs help parents and caregivers understand how
vital their role is and provide adult education programs and other ways to
support adult literacy. As children become adolescents. families and
community members provide the support needEd to keep middle and
high school students engaged in school. Role nodels in the family and
community encourage high school students in their exploration of
colleges and careers. Effective programs emphasize that all of the
components of literacy-close and critical reading, coherent writing,
articulate speaking, and attentive listening-are essential in a democratic
society.
Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language llrts and Literacy, March 2011
,..-,
(Y)
0
0
r::r:
Students Who are College and Career Ready

in Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening, and Language
The descriptions that follow are not standards themselves but instead offer a portrait of students who meet the standards set OU!t in this document. As
students advance through the grades and master the standards in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language, they are ;able to exhibit with
increasing fullness and regularity these capacities of the literate individual.
T'hey demonstrate independence.
They comprehend as well as critique.
Students can, without significant scaffolding, comprehend and evaluate

complex texts across a range of types and disciplines, and they can
construct effective arguments and convey intricate or multifaceted
information. Likewise, students are able independently to discern a
speaker's key points, request clarification, and ask relevant questions.
They build on others' ideas, articulate their own ideas, and confim1 they
have been understood. Without prompting, they demonstrate command
of standard English and acquire and use a wide-ranging vocabulary.
More broadly, they become self-directed learners, effectively seeking out
and using resources to assist them, including teachers, peers, and print
and digital reference materials.
Students are engaged and open-minded-but discerning-readers and

listeners. They work diligently to understand precisely what an authm or
speaker is saying, but they also question an author's or speaker's
assumptions and premises and assess the veracity of claims and the
soundness of reasoning.
They value evidence.

Students cite specific evidence when offering an ora! or written
interpretation of a text. They use relevant evidence when supportin!~ their
own points in writing and speaking, making their reasoning clear to the
reader or listener, and they constructively evaluate others' use of
evidence.
They build strong content knowledge.

Students establish a base of knowledge across a wide range of subject
matter by engaging with works of quality and substance. They become
proficient in new areas through research and study. They read
purposefully and listen attentively to gain both general knowledge and
discipline-specific expertise. They refine and share their knowledge
through writing and speaking.
They respond to the varying demands of audience, task,

purpose, and discipline.
Students adapt their communication in relation to audience, task.
purpose, and discipline. They set and adjust purpose for reading, writing,
speaking, listening, and language use as warranted by the task. They
appreciate nuances, such as how the composition of an audience should
affect tone when speaking and how the connotations of words affect
meaning. They also know that different disciplines call for different types
of evidence (e.g., documentary evidence in history, experimental
ElVidence in science).
They use technology and digital medial strategically and

capably.
Students employ technology thoughtfully to enhance their reading,
(Y)
I
0
0
.:::e
writing, speaking, listening, and language use'. They tailor their searches
online to acquire useful information efficiently. and they integrate wl1at
they learn using technology with what they learn offline. They are fc:1miliar
with the strengths and limitations of various telchnological tools and
mediums and can select and use those best suited to their
communication goals.
They come to understand other perspt~ctives and cultures.

Students appreciate that the twenty-first-century classroom and
workplace are settings in which people from often widely divergent
cultures and who represent diverse experiences and perspectives must
learn .:md work together. Students actively seek to understand other
perspectives and cultures through reading and listening, and they s1re
able to communicate effectively with people C>f varied backgrounds. They
evaluate other points of view critically and constructively. Through
reading great classic and contemporary work:s of literature! representative
of a variety of periods. cultures, and worldviews. students can vicariously
inhabit worlds and have experiences much different than their own.
Standards Organization and Key Features

Organization of the Standards in This Document
Key Features of the Standards in each Strand
The learning standards that follow this introduction are organized into
three main sections:
A comprehensive pre-k-5 section lists standards across the
curriculum, reflecting the fact that most of all of the instruction
received by students in these grades comes from one teacher.
Two sections of standards are presented for grades 6-12. Each
section is content-area specific: one section focuses on ELA and
is intended for use by English language arts teachers; the other
section focuses on history/social studies, science, and technical
subjects, and is intended for use by teachers of those content
areas.
Reading: Text Complexity and the Growth of Comprehension

The Reading standards place equal emphasis on the sophistication of
what students read and the skill with which they read. Standard 10
defines a grade-by-grade "staircase" of increasi11g text complexity that
rises from beginning reading to the college and career readiness level.
Whatever they are reading, students must also :>how a steadily growing
ability to discern more from and make fuller use of text, including making
an increasing number of connections among idE>as and between texts;
considering a wider range of textual evidence; and becoming more
sensitive to inconsistencies, ambiguities, and poor reasoning in texts.
Each section is divided into strands. The ELA sections for pre-k-5 and
grades 6-12 have four strands: Reading, Writing, Speaking and
Listening, and Language. The grades 6-12 history/social studies,
science, and technical subjects section has two strands: Reading and
Writing.
The Writing standards acknowledge the fact that whereas some writing
skills, such as the ability to plan, revise, edit, and publish, are applicable
to many types of writing, other skills are more properly defined in terms
of specific writing types: arguments, informative/explanatory texts, and
narratives. Standard 9 stresses the importance ,:>f the writing-reading
connection by requiring students to draw upon and write about evidence
from literary and informational texts. Because of the centrality of writing
to most forms of inquiry, research standards are prominently included in
this strand, though skills important to research <::re infused throughout the
document.
The Reading strand is further divided into subsets of standards that are
specific to grades and content areas {e.g., RH =History/Social Science
Reading standards for grades 6-12; RF = ELA Foundational Skills in
Reading for grades pre-k-5).
Each strand is headed by a strand-specific set of College and Career
Readiness (CCR} anchor standards that is identical across all grades
and, for Reading and Writing, across all content areas.
The CCR anchor standards in each strand are followed by grade-specific
standards (for each grade within pre-k-8 and for grade bands 9-10 and
11-12) that translate the broader CCR statements into grade-appropriate
end-of-year expectations. Each grade-specific standard corresponds to
its same-numbered CCR anchor standard and is tuned to the literacy
requirements of its particular discipline(s).
Individual CCR anchor standards are identified by strand, CCR status,
and number (R.CCR.6, for example, is the sixth CCR anchor standard
for the Reading strand). Strand coding designations are found in
brackets at the top of the page, to the right of the full strand title.
Individual grade-specific standards are identified by strand, grade, and
number (or number and letter, where applicable): for example, Rl.4.3
stands for Reading: Informational Text, grade 4, standard 3, and W.5.1a
stands for Writing, grade 5, standard 1a. Standards preceded by "MA"
are Massachusetts additions to the Common Core standards.
-----------------~-~----
10
----------------..
Writing: Text Types, Responding to Reading, and Research
Speaking and Listening: Flexible
Communic,r~tion
and Collaboration
The Speaking and Listening standards require s;tudents to develop a

range of broadly useful oral communication and interpersonal skills,
including but not limited to skills necessary for formal presentations.
Students must learn to work together; express z:nd listen carefully to
ideas; integrate information from oral, visual, quantitative, and media
sources; evaluate what they hear; use media ard visual displays
strategically to help achieve communicative purposes; and adapt speech
to context and task.
Language: Conventions, Effective Use, and Vocabulary

The Language standards include the essential "rules" of standard written
and spoken English, but they also approach language as a matter of
craft and informed choice among alternatives. The vocabulary standards
focus on understanding words and phrases, their relationships, and their
nuances, and on acquiring new vocabulary, pal':icularly general
academic and domain-specific words and phrases.
.. ~...~ ....
Massachusetts Curriculum Framework for English Language J\rts and Literacy, March 2011
(Y)
(Y)
I
0
0
r::I;
ADDENDUM D
ADD-34
ORGANIZATIONAL C~ 1ART
Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secor.dary Education
March, 2015
BOMO OF ELMENTAAY &

5fCONDAAYEOUCA170N
Ct"'nmissiCMr
;-;"""'"'"' I
~I.IJ~il:"'
>'
tJ
tJ
... ---- -
v.;!!>Cfl\::
>:>~""'
.. ~ :"\
'I
t.:.1i~t~a:l'i~
~~~2:.3~:::.~,
------'-h
:
q,~=lQt,.,~'-"""'
,. --=1I
''"'""'"=. .
r>-otr~"'""l
I
:V;.;,;..t
A.."MI~~..K>o~
j:...,;..: \'J~~fi~:..~"IJ
I '"~~- I
'''"'""""'"'"'~'j
~o:bl;~~1\;>!~."'
~~
......
L__j
lHUl~45<:'M~
---1.H
i,--1
LJ. .,
~:
J"'=~~
------'
,~I
PWYI!!;>&F.:llftv
o-loli'IIW"t
W.u.tl<ll''
, ....,._,,
-.-
,..,_""""'~I
J '"'""
II
~----l
ADDENDUM E
ADD-36
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY
SUFFOLK, ss.
No. SJ-2016-024.
STEPHANIE GRAY, ROBERT ANTONUCCI, BILL WALCZAK, DIANNE KELLY, B.

JOHN DILL, KALIMAH RAHIM, APRIL WEST, BEVERLY HOLMES, JACINTHE
ALBANI, and VANESSA CALDERON-ROSADO
v.
MAURA HEALEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
and WILLIAM F. GALVIN, IN IDS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF
THE COMMONWEALTH
RESERVATION AND REPORT

This case came before the Court, Cordy, J., on a petition pursuant to G.L. c. 249 4 and
5,
I reserve and report this case without decision for determination by the Supreme Judicial
Court for the Commonwealth on the record now before me.
The record before the full court shall consist of the following:
1. the petitioners' complaint for certiorari and mandamus review;
2. the parties' statement of agreed fact and exhibits;
3. the docket sheet in SJ-2016-024; and
4. this Reservation and Report.
This matter shall proceed in all respects in conformance with the Massachusetts Rules of
Appellate Procedure. The petitioners are designated the appellant.
The parties shall confer with the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for the
Commonwealth regarding a schedule for the filing and service of briefs.
,.
. l
!
Dated:
\-.1.-vl ?. .!' 'lbl{,
!d,bGrl J. c('l'dN
Associate Jmti c(:
ADD-37
I
I
ADDENDUM F
ADD-38
317/2016
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Article XLVIII.
I. Definition.
Legislative power shall continue to be vested in the general court; but the people reserve to
themselves the popular initiative, which is the power of a specified number of voters to submit
constitutional amendments and laws to the people for approval or rejection; and the popular
referendum/ which is the power of a specified number of voters to submit laws, enacted by the
general court, to the people for their ratification or rejection.
The Initiative.
II. Initiative Petitions

Section 1. Contents. An initiative petition shall set forth the full text of the constitutional
amendment or law, hereinafter designated as the measure, which is proposed by the petition.
Section 2. Excluded Matters. - No measure that relates to religion, religious practices or
religious institutions; or to the appointment, qualification, tenure, removal, recall or
compensation of judges; or to the reversal of a judicial decision; or to the powers, creation or
abolition of courts; or the operation of which is restricted to a particular town, city or other
political division or to particular districts or localities of the commonwealth; or that makes a
specific appropriation of money from the treasury of the commonwealth, shall be proposed by
an initiative petition; but if a law approved by the people is not repealed, the general court
shall raise by taxation or otherwise and shall appropriate such money as may be necessary to
carry such law into effect.
Neither the eighteenth amendment of the constitution, as approved and ratitied to take effect
on the first day of October in the year nineteen hundred and eighteen 1 nor this provision for its
protection, shall be the subject of an initiative amendment.
f\Jo pr-oposition inconsistent with any one of the following rights of the individual, as at present
declared in the declaration of rights, shall be the subject of an initiative or referendum petition:
https://malegislature.gov/L.aws/Constitutiorrltcart048-ll.htm
ADD-39
1/10
317/2016
The right to receive compensation for private property appropriated to public use; the right of
access to and protection in courts of justice; the right of trial by jury; protection from
unreasonable search, unreasonable bail and the law martial; freedom of the press; freedom of
speech; freedom of elections; and the right of peaceable assembly.
No part of the constitution specifically excluding any matter from the operation of the popular
initiative and referendum
~hall
be the subject of an initiative petition; nor shall this section be
the subject of such a petition.

The limitations on the legislative power of the general court in the constitution shall extend to
the legislative power of the people as exercised hereunder.
[Section 3. Mode of Originating. - Such petition shall first be signed by ten qualified voters of
the commonwealth and shall then be submitted to the attorney-general, and if he shall certify
that the measure is in proper form for submission to the people, and that it is not, either
affirmatively or negatively, substantially the same as any measure which has been qualified for
submission or submitted to the people within three years of the succeeding first Wednesday in
December and that it contains only subjects not excluded from the popular initiative and which
are related or which are mutually dependent, it may then be filed with the secretary of the
commonwealth. The secretary of the commonwealth shall provide blanks for the use of
subsequent signers, and shall print at the top of each blank a description of the proposed
measure as such description will appear on the ballot together with the names and residences
of the first ten signers. All initiative petitions, with the first ten signatures attached, shall be
filed with the secretary of the commonwealth not earlierthan the first Wednesday of the
September before the assembling of the general court into which they are to be introduced,
and the remainder of the required signatures shall be filed not
la~er
than the first Wednesday
of the following December.] [Section 3 superseded by section 1 of Amendments, Art. LXXIV.]

Section 4. Transmission to the General Court. -If an initiative petition, signed by the required
number of qualified voters, has been filed as aforesaid, the secretary of the commonwealth
shall, upon the assembling of the general court, transmit it to the clerk of the house of
representatives, and the proposed measure shall then be deemed to be introduced and
pending.
https:/lmalegislature.govflaws/Constitution#cart048-ll.htm
ADD-40
2110
317/2016
III. Legislative Action. General Provisions

Section 1. Reference to Committee. - If a measure is introduced into the general court by
initiative petition, it shall be referred to a committee thereof, and the petitioners and all parties
in interest shall be heard, and the measure shall be considered and reported upon to the
general court with the committee's recommendations, and the reasons therefor, in writing.
Majority and minority reports shall be signed by the members of said committee.
Section 2. Legislative Substitutes. -The general court may, by resolution passed by yea and
nay vote, either by the two houses separately, or in the case of a constitutional amendment by
a majority of those voting thereon in joint session in each of two years as hereinafter provided,
submit to the people a substitute for any measure introduced by initiative petition, such
substitute to be designated on the ballot as the legislative substitute for such an initiative
measure and to be grouped with it as an alternative therefor.
IV. Legislative Action on Proposed Constitutional Amendments

[Section 1. Definition. -A proposal for amendment to the constitution introduced into the
general court by initiative petition shall be designated an initiative amendment, and an
amendment introduced by a member of either house shall be designated a legislative
substitute or a legislative amendment.
Section 2. Joint Session. -If a proposal for a specific amendment of the constitution is
introduced into the general court by initiative petition signed by not less than twenty-five
thousand qualified voters, or if In case of a proposal for amendment introduced into the general
court by a member of either house, consideration thereof in joint session is called for by vote of
.::it!.::r
hn;_~c;P,
.;;twh proposal shall, not later than the second Wednesday In June, be laid before a
joint session of the two houses, at which the president of the senate shall preside; and if the
two houses fail to agree upon a time for holding any joint session hereby required, or fail to
continue the same from time to time until final action has been taken upon all amendments
pending, the governor shall call such joint session or continuance thereof.] [Section 2
superseded by section 1 of Amendments, Art. LXXXI.]
htlps://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#cart048-ll.htm
ADD-41
3/10
3/7/2016
Section 3. Amendment of Proposed Amendments. -A proposal for an amendment to the

constitution introduced by initiative petition shall be voted upon in the form in which it was
introduced, unless such amendment is amended by vote of three-fourths of the members
voting thereon in joint session, which vote shall be taken by call of the yeas and nays if called
for by any member.
Section 4. Legislative Action . .- Final legislative action in the joint session upon any amendment
shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays, which shall be entered upon the journals of the
two houses; and an unfavorable vote at any stage preceding final action shall be verified by call
of the yeas and nays, to be entered in like manner. At such joint session a legislative
amendment receiving the affirmative votes of a majority of all the members elected, or an
initiative amendment receiving the affirmative votes of not less than one-fourth of all the
members elected, shall be referred to the next general court.
Section 5. Submission to the People. If in the next general court a legislative amendment sl1all
again be agreed to in joint session by a majority of all the members elected, or if an initiative
amendment or a legislative substitute shall again receive the affirmative votes of a least onefourth of aii the members eiected, such fact shaii be certified by the cierk of such joint session
to the secretary of the commonwealth, who shall submit the amendment to the people at the
next state election. Such amendment shall become part of the constitution if approved, in the
case of a legislative amendment, by a majority of the voters voting thereon, or if approved, in
the case of an initiative amendment or a legislative substitute, by voters equal in number to at
least thirty per cent of the total number of ballots cast at such state election and also by a
majority of the voters voting on such amendment.
tegislative Action on Proposed Laws,
(Section 1. Legisiative Procedure. - If an initiative petition for a law is introduced into the
general court, signed by not less than twenty thousand qualified voters, a vote shall be taken
by yeas and nays in both houses before the first Wednesday of June upon the enactment of
such law in the form in which it stands in such petition. If the generai court fails to enact such
law before the first Wednesday of June, and if such petition is completed by filing with the
https ://malegislature.gov/Lllws/Constitution#cart048-!l.hlm
ADD-42
4ii0
317/2016
secretary of the commonwealth, not earlier than the first Wednesday of the following July nor
later than the first Wednesday of the following August, not less than five thousand signatures
of qualified voters, in addition to those signing such initiative petition, which signatures must
have been obtained after the first Wednesday of June aforesaid, then the secretary of the
commonwealth shall submit such proposed law to the people at the next state election. If it
shall be approved by voters equal in number to at least thirty per cent of the total number of
ballots cast at such state election and also by a majority of the voters voting on such law, it
shall become law, and shall take effect in thirty days after such state election or at such time
after such election as may be provided in such law.] [Section 1 superseded by section 2 of
Amendments, Art. LXXXI.]
[Section 2. Amendment by Petitioners. If the general court fails to pass a proposed law before
the first Wednesday of June, a majority of the first ten signers of the initiative petition therefor
shall have the right, subject to certification by the attorney-general filed as hereinafter
provided, to amend the measure which is the subject of such petition. An amendment so made
shall not invalidate any signature attached to the petition. If the measure so amended, signed
by a majority of the first ten signers, is filed with the secretary of the commonwealth before
the first Wednesday of the following July, together with a certificate signed by the attorneygeneral to the effect that the amendment made by such proposers is in his opinion perfecting
in its nature and does not materially change the substance of the measure, and if such petition
is completed by filing with the secretary of the commonwealth, not earlier than the first
Wednesday of the following July nor later than the first Wednesday of the following August, not
less than five thousand signatures of qualified voters, in addition to those signing such
initiative petition, which signatures must have been obtained after the first Wednesday of June
aforesaid, then the secretary of the commonwealth shall submit the measure to the people in
its amended form.] [Section 2 superseded by section 3 of Amendments, Art. LXXXI.]
If in any judicial proceeding, provisions of constitutional amendments or of laws approved by

the people at the same election are held to be in conflict, then the provisions contained in the
https://malegislature.gov/l..PJ.Ns/Constitution#cart048-ll.htm
ADD-43
5/10
3/7/2016
measure that received the largest number of affirmative votes at such election shall govern.
A constitutional amendment approved at any election shall govern any law approved at the
same election.
The general court, by resolution passed as hereinbefore set forth, may provide for grouping and
designating upon the ballot as conflicting measures or as alternative measures, only one of
which is to be adopted, any two or more proposed constitutional amendments or laws which
have been or may be passed or qualified for submission to the people at any one election:
provided, that a proposed constitutional amendment and a proposed law shall not be so
grouped, and that the ballot shall afford an opportunity to the voter to vote for each of the
measures or for only one of the measures, as may be provided in said resolution, or against
each of the measures so grouped as conflicting or as alternative. In case more than one of the
measures so grouped shall receive the vote required for its approval as herein provided, only
that one for which the largest affirmative vote was cast shall be deemed to be approved.
The Referendum.
I. When Statutes shall take Effect.
No law passed by the general court shall take effect earlier than ninety days after it has become
a law 1 excepting laws declared to be emergency laws and laws which may not be made the
subject of a referendum petition 1 as herein provided.
II. Emergency Measures.
A law declared to be an emergency law shall contain a preamble setting forth the facts
constituting the emergency, and shall contain the statement that such law is necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety or convenience. [A separate vote
shall be taken on the preamble by call of the yeas and nays, which shall be recorded, and
unless the preamble is adopted by two-thirds of the members of each house voting thereon,
the law shall not be an emergency law; but] if the governor, at any time before the election at
which it is to be submitted to the people on referendum, files with the secretary of the
https://malegislature.gov/LJN.Js/Constitution#cart04B-II.htm
6110
ADD-44
31712016
commonwealth a statement declaring that in his opinion the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health, safety or convenience requires that such law should take effect forthwith
and that it is an emergency law and setting forth the facts constituting the emergency, then
such law, if not previously suspended as hereinafter provided, shall take effect without
suspension, or if such law has been so suspended such suspension shall thereupon terminate
and such law shall thereupon take effect: but no grant of any franchise or amendment thereof,
or renewal or extension thereof for more than one year shall be declared to be an emergency
law. [See Amendments, Art. [See Amendments, Art. LXVII.]
III. Referendum Petitions.

Section 1. Contents. -A referendum petition may ask for a referendum to the people upon any
law enacted by the general court which is not herein expressly excluded.
Section 2. Excluded Matters. No law that relates to religion, religious practices or religious
institutions; or to the appointment, qualification, tenure, removal or compensation of judges;
or to the powers, creation or abolition of courts; or the operation of which is restricted to a
particular town, city or other political division or to particular districts or localities of the
commonwealth; or that appropriates money for the current or ordinary expenses of the
commonwealth or for any of its departments, boards, commissions or institutions shall be the
subject of a referendum petition.
Section 3. Mode of Petitioning for the Suspension of a Law and a Referendum Thereon. -A
petition asking for a referendum on a law, and requesting that the operation of such law be
suspended, shall first be signed by ten qualified voters and shall then be filed with the
secretary of the commonwealth not later than thirty days after the law that is the subject of
the petition ha:; becume idw. [The secretary of t:-,e commonvvealth shall provide blanks for the
use of subsequent signers, and shall print at the top of each blank a description of the
proposed law as such description will appear on the ballot together with the names and
residences of the first ten signers. If such petition is completed by filing with the secretary of
the commonwealth not later than ninety days after the law which is the subject of the petition
has become law the signatures of not less than fifteen thousand qualified voters of the
https:l/malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#cart048-ll.h!m
ADD-45
7/10
317/2016
commonwealth, then the operation of such law shall be suspended, and the secretary of the
commonwealth shall submit such law to the people at the next state election, if thirty days
intervene between the date when such petition is filed with the secretary of the commonwealth
and the date for holding such state election; if thirty days do not so intervene, then such law
shall be submitted to the people at the next following state election, unless in the meantime it
shall have been repealed; and if it shall be approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting
thereon, such law shall, subject to the provisions of the constitution, take effect in thirty days
after such election, or at such time after such election as may be provided in such law; if not so
approved such law shall be null and void; but no such law shall be held to be disapproved if the
negative vote is less than thirty per cent of the total number of ballots cast at such state
election.] [Section 3 amended by section 2 of Amendments, Art.LXXIV and section 4 of
Amendments, Art. LXXXI]
Section 4. Petitions for Referendum on an Emergency Law or a Law the Suspension of Which is
Not Asked for. - A referendum petition may ask for the repeal of an emergency law or of a law
which takes effect because the referendum petition does not contain a request for suspension,
as aforesaid. Such petition shall first be signed by ten qualified voters of the commonwealth,
and shall then be filed with the secretary of the commonwealth not later than thirty days after
the law which is the subject of the petition has become law. [The secretary of the
commonwealth shall provide blanks for the use of subsequent signers, and shall print at the top
of each blank a description of the proposed law as such description will appear on the ballot
together with the names and residences of the first ten signers. If such petition filed as
aforesaid is completed by filing with the secretary of the commonwealth not later than ninety
days after the law which is the subject of the petition has become law the signatures of not less
than ten thousand qualified voters of the commonwealth protesting against such law and
asking for a referendum thereon, then the secretary of the commonwealth shall submit such
law to the people at the next state election, if thirty days intervene between the date when
such petition is filed with the secretary of the commonwealth and the date for holding such
state election. If thirty days do not so intervene, then it shall be submitted to the people at the
next following state election 1 unless in the meantime it shall have been repealed; and if it shaii
not be approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting thereon, it shall, at the expiration
of thirty days after such election, be thereby repealed; but no such law shall be held to be
disapproved if the negative vote is less than thirty per cent of the total number of ballots cast
https:llmalegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#cart048-ll.hlm
ADD-46
8/10
317/2016
at such state election.] [Section 4 superseded by section 3 of Amendments, ArtLXXIV and

section 5 of Amendments, Art. LXXXI.]
General Provisions.
I. Identification and Certification of Signatures.
Provision shall be made by law for the proper identification and certification of signatures to the
petitions hereinbefore referred to, and for penalties for signing any such petition, or refusing to
sign it, for money or other valuable consideration, and for the forgery of signatures thereto.
Pending the passage of such legislation all provisions of law relating to the identification and
certification of signatures to petitions for the nomination of candidates for state offices or to
penalties for the forgery of such signatures shall apply to the signatures to the petitions herein
referred to. The general court may provide by law that no co-partnership or corporation shall
undertake for hire or reward to circulate petitions, may require individuals who circulate
petitions for hire or reward to be licensed, and may make other reasonable regulations to
prevent abuses arising from the circulation of petitions for hire or reward.
II. Limitation on Signatures.
Not more than one-fourth of the certified signatures on any petition shall be those of registered
voters of any one county.
III. Form of Ballot.

Each proposed amendment to the constitution, and each law submitted to the people, shall be
described on the ballots by a description to be determined by the attorney-general, subject to
such provision as may be made by iaw, and the secretary of the commonwealth shaii give each
question a number and cause such question, except as otherwise authorized herein, to be
printed on the ballot in the following form:In the case of an amendment to the constitution: Shall an amendment to the constitution
(here insert description, and state, in distinctive type, whether approved or disapproved by the
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#cari048-ll.htm
ADD-47
9/10
317/2016
general court, and by what vote thereon) be approved?

In the case of a law: Shall a law (here insert description, and state, in distinctive type, whether
approved or disapproved by the general court, and by what vote thereon) be approved?
IV. Information for Voters.
The secretary of the commonwealth shall cause to be printed and sent to each registered voter
in the commonwealth the full text of every measure to be submitted to the people, together
with a copy of the legislative committee's majority and minority reports, if there be such, with
the names of the majority and minority members thereon, a statement of the votes of the
general court on the measure, and a description of the measure as such description will appear
on the ballot; and shall, in such manner as may be provided by law, cause to be prepared and
sent to the voters other information and arguments for and against the measure.]
[Subheadings III andiV superseded by section 4 of Amendments, Art. LXXIV.]
[Subheading IV superseded by Amendments,Art. CVIII.]
V. The Veto Power of the Governor.
Subject to the veto power of the governor and to the right of referendum by petition as herein
provided, the general court may amend or repeal a law approved by the people.
VI. The General Court's Power of Repeal.
Subject to the veto power of the governor and to the right of referendum by petition as herein
provided, the general court may amend or repeal a law approved by the people.
VII. Amendment Declared to be Self-executing.

This article of amendment to the constitution is self-executing, but legislation not inconsistent
vvith anything herein contained may be enacted to facilitate the operation of its provisions.
VIII. Articles IX and XLII of Amendments of the Constitution Annulled.

Article IX and Article XLII of the amendments of the constitution are hereby annulled.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#cart048-ll.htm
ADD-48
10/10
ADDENDUM G
ADD-49
317/2016
Article LXXXI. Section 1. Article XLVIII of the Amendments to the Constitution is hereby
amended by striking out section 2, under the heading "THE INITIATIVE. IV. Legislative Action
on Proposed Constitutional Amendments.", and inserting in place thereof the
following:~
Section 2. Joint Session. -If a proposal for a specific amendment of the constitution is
introduced into the general court by initiative petition signed In the aggregate by not less than
such number of voters as will equal three per cent of the entire vote cast for governor at the
preceding biennial state election, or if in case of a proposal for amendment introduced into the
general court by a member of either house, consideration thereof in joint session is called for by
vote of either house, such proposal shall, not later than the second Wednesday in May, be laid
before a joint session of the two houses, at which the president of the senate shall preside; and
if the two houses fail to agree upon a time for holding any joint session hereby required, or fail
to continue the same from time to time until final action has been taken upon all amendments
pending, the governor shall call such joint session or continuance thereof.
Section 2. Section 1 of that part of said Article XLVIII, under the heading "THE INITIATIVE. V.
Legislative Action on Proposed Laws.", is hereby amended by striking out said section and
inserting in place thereof the following:Section 1. Legislative Procedure. - If an initiative petition for a law is introduced into the
general court, signed in the aggregate by not less than such number of voters as will equal
three per cent of the entire vote cast for governor at the preceding biennial state election, a
vote shall be taken by yeas and nays in both houses before the first Wednesday of May upon
the enactment of such law in the form in which it stands in such petition. If the general court
fails to enact such law before the first Wednesday of May, and if such petition is completed by
filing with the secretary of the commonwealth, not earlier than the first Wednesday of the
following June nor !ater than the first Wednesday of the following July, a number of signatures
of qualified voters equal in number to not less than one half of one per cent of the entire vote
cast for governor at the preceding biennial state election, in addition to those signing such
initiative petition, which signatures must have been obtained after the first Wednesday of May
aforesaid, then the secretary of the commonwealth shall submit such proposed law to the
people at the next state election. If it shall be approved by voters equal in number to at least
https://malegislature.gov/l.Jffls/Constitutionttcart048-ll.htm
ADD-50
1/4
317/2016
thirty per cent of the total number of ballots cast at such state election and also by a majority
of the voters voting on such law, it shall become law, and shall take effect in thirty days after
such state election or at such time after such election as may be provided in such law.
Section 3. Section 2 of that part of said Article XLVIII 1 under the heading "THE INITIATIVE. V.
Legislative Action on Proposed Laws.", is hereby amended by striking out said section and
inserting in place thereof the following:Section 2. Amendment by Petitioners. If the general court fails to pass a proposed law before
the first Wednesday of May, a majority of the first ten signers of the Initiative petition therefor
shall have the right, subject to certification by the attorney-general filed as hereinafter
provided , to amend the measure which is the subject of such petition. An amendment so
made shall not invalidate any signature attached to the petition. If the measure so amended,
signed by a majority of the first ten signers, is filed with the secretary of the commonwealth
before the first Wednesday of the following June, together with a certificate signed by the
attorney-general to the effect that the amendment made by such proposers is in his opinion
perfecting in its nature and does not materially change the substance of the measure, and if
such petition is completed by filing with the secretary of the commonwealth, not earlier than
the first Wednesday of the following June nor later than the first Wednesday of the following
July, a number of signatures of qualified voters equal in number to not less than one half of one
per cent of the entire vote cast for governor at the preceding biennial state election in addition
to those signing such initiative petition, which signatures must have been obtained after the
first Wednesday of May aforesaid, then the secretary of the commonwealth shall submit the
measure to the people in its amended form.
Section 4. Section 3 of that part of said Article XLVIII, under the heading "THE
REFERENDUM.IIJ. Referendum Petitions.", is hereby amended by striking out the sentence "If
such petition is completed by filing with the secretary of the commonwealth not later than
ninety days after the law which is the subject of the petition has become law the signatures of
not less than fifteen thousand qualified voters of the commonwealth, then the- operation of such
law shall be suspended, and the secretary of the commonwealth shall submit such law to the
people at the next state election, if thirty days intervene between the date when such petition
is filed with the secretary of the commonwealth and the date for holding such state election; if
httpsJ/malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#cart048-U.htm
ADD-51
2J4
317/2016
thirty days do not so intervene, then such law shall be submitted to the people at the next
fo!!owing state e!ect!on; unless in the meantime it shall have been repealed; and if it shall be
approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting thereon, such law shall, subject to the
provisions of the constitution, take effect in thirty days after such election, or at such time after
such election as may be provided in such law; if not so approved such law shall be null and
void; but no such law shall be held to be disapproved if the negative vote is less than thirty per
cent of the total number of ballots cast at such state election." and inserting in place thereof
the following sentence:-- If such petition is completed by filing with the secretary of the
commonwealth not later than ninety days after the law which is the subject of the petition has
become law a number of signatures of qualified voters equal in number to not less than two per
cent of the entire vote cast for governor at the preceding biennial state election, then the
operation of such law shall be suspended, and the secretary of the commonwealth shall submit
such law to the people at the next state election, if sixty days intervene between the date when
such petition is filed with the secretary of the commonwealth and the date for holding such
state election; if sixty days do not so intervene, then such law shall be submitted to the people
at the next following state election, unless in the meantime it shall have been repealed; and if
it shall be approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting thereon, such law shall, subject
to the provisions of the constitution, take effect in thirty days after such election, or at such
time after such election as may be provided in such law; if not so approved such law shall be
null and void; but no such law shall be held to be disapproved if the negative vote is less than
thirty per cent of the total number of ballots cast at such state election.
Section 5. Section 4 of that part of said Article XLVIII, under the heading-"THE
REFERENDUM.III. Referendum Petitions. is hereby amended by striking out the words "If such
petition filed as aforesaid is completed by filing with the secretary of the commonwealth not
later than ninety days after the law which is the subject of the petition has become law the
signatures of not less than ten thousand qualified voters of the commonwealth protesting
against such law and asking for a referendum thereon, then the secretary of the commonwealth
shall submit such law to the people at the next state election, if thirty days intervene between
the date when such petition is filed with the secretary of the commonwealth and the date for
holding such state election. If thirty days do not so intervene, then it shall be submitted to the
people at the next following state election, unless in the meantime it shall have been repealed;
and if it shall not be approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting thereon, it shall, at
htlps://maleglslature.gov/Laws/Constitution#cart048-ll.htm
ADD-52
3/4
3/7/2016
the expiration of thirty days after such election, be thereby repealed; but no such law shall be
held to be disapproved if the negative vote is less than thirty per cent of the total
num~er
of
ballots cast at such state election." and inserting in place thereof the following: -If such
petition filed as aforesaid is completed by filing with the secretary of the commonwealth not
later than ninety days after the law which is the subject of the petition has become law a
number of signatures of qualified voters equal in number to not less than one and one half per
cent ofthe entire vote cast for governor at the preceding biennial state election protesting
against such law and asking for a referendum thereon, then the secretary of the commonwealth
shall submit such law to the people at the next state election, if sixty days intervene between
the date when such petition is filed with the secretary of the commonwealth and the date for
holding such state election. If sixty days do not so intervene, then it shall be submitted to the
people at the next following state election, unless in the meantime it shall have been repealed;
and if it shall not be approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting thereon, it shall, at
the expiration of thirty days after such election, be thereby repealed; but no such law shall be
held to be disapproved if the negative vote is less than thirty per cent of the total number of
ballots cast at such state election.
https://malegislature.gov/l.2.ws/Constitution#cart04S-II.htm
ADD-53
4/4
ADDENDUM H
ADD-54
317/2016
Article LXXIV. Section 1. Article XLVIII of the amendments to the constitution is hereby
amended by striking out section three, under the heading "THE INITIATIVE. III. Initiative
Petitions.", and inserting in place thereof the following: -
Section 3. Mode of Originating. -Such petition shall first be signed by ten qualified voters of
the commonwealth and shall be submitted to the attorney-general not later than the first
Wednesday of the August before the assembling of the general court into which it is to be
introduced, and if he shall certify that the measure and the title thereof are in proper form for
submission to the people, and that the measure is not, either affirmatively or negatively,
substantially the same as any measure which has been qualified for submission or submitted to
the people at either of the two preceding biennial state elections, and that it contains only
subjects not excluded from the popular initiative and which are related or which are mutually
dependent, it may then be filed with the secretary of the commonwealth. The secretary of the
commonwealth shall provide blanks for the use of subsequent signers, and shall print at the top
of each blank a fair, concise summary, as determined by the attorney-general, of the proposed
measure as such summary will appear on the ballot together with the names and residences of
the first ten signers. All initiative petitions, with the first ten signatures attached, shall be filed
with the secretary of the commonwealth not earlier than the first Wednesday of the September
before the assembling of the general court into which they are to be introduced, and the
remainder of the required signatures shall be filed not later than the first Wednesday of the
following December.
Section 2. Section three of that part of said Article XLVIII, under the heading "THE
REFERENDUM. III. Referendum Petitions.", is hereby amended by striking out the words "The
secretary of the commonwealth shall provide blanks for the use of subsequent signers, and
shall print at the top of each blank a description of the proposed law as such description will
appear on the ballot together with the names and residences of the first ten signers.", and
inserting in place thereof the words "The secretary of the commonwealth shall provide blanks
for the use of subsequent signers, and shall print at the top of each blank a fair, concise
summary of the proposed law as such summary will appear on the ballot together with the
names and residences of the first ten signers.''
https://malagislature.gov/Laws/Constituticn#cart048-ll.htm
ADD-55
1/3
317/2016
Section 3. Section four of that part of said Article XLVIII under the heading "THE
REFERENDUM. III. Referendum Petitions.", is hereby amended by striking out the words "The
secretary of the commonwealth shall provide blanks for the use of subsequent signers, and
shall print at the top of each blank a description of the proposed law as such description will
appear on the ballot together with the names and residences of the first ten signers.", and
inserting in place thereof the words "The secretary of the commonwealth shall provide blanks
for the use of subsequent signers 1 and shall print at the top of each blank a fair, concise
summary of the proposed law as such summary will appear on the ballot together with the
names and residences of the first ten signers."
Section 4. Said Article XLVIII is hereby further amended by striking out, under the heading
"GENERAL PROVISIONS", all of subheading "III. Form of Ballot." and all of subheading "IV.
Information for Voters.", and inserting in place thereof the following:--
III. Form of Ballot.
A fair, concise summary/ as determined by the attorney general, subject to such provision as
may be made by law, of each proposed amendment to the constitution, and each law
submitted to the people, shall be printed on the ballot, and the secretary of the commonwealth
shall give each question a number and cause such question, except as otherwise authorized
herein, to be printed on the ballot in the following form:-In the case of an amendment to the constitution: Do you approve of the adoption of an
amendment to the constitution summarized below, (here state, in distinctive type, whether
approved or disapproved by the general court, and by what vote thereon)?
[Set forth summary here]
In the case of a law: Do you approve of a law summarized below/ (here state, in distinctive
type, whether approved or disapproved by the general court, and by what vote thereon)?
[Set forth summary here]
https:llmalegislature.govlt..aws/Constitution#cart048--l!.htm
ADD-56
213
317/2016
IV. Information for Voters.
The secretary of the commonwealth shall cause to be printed and sent to each registered voter
in the commonwealth the full text of every measure to be submitted to the people, together
with a copy of the legislative committee's majority and minority reports, if there be such, with
the names of the majority and minority members thereon, a statement of the votes of the
general court on the measure, and a fair, concise summary of the measure as such summary
will appear on the ballot; and shall, in such manner as may be provided by law, cause to be
prepared and sent to the voters other information and arguments for and against the
measure.] [See Amendments, Art. CVIII.]
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#cart048-ll.hlm
ADD-57
313
ADDENDUM I
ADD-58
General Laws: CHAPTER 69, Section 1D
317/2016
Print
PART I ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE XII EDUCATION
CHAPTER 69 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION
Section 10
Statewide educational goals; academic standards; vocational training; grant program
Section 1D. The board shall establish a set of statewide educational goals for all public
elementary and secondary schools in the commonwealth.
The board shall direct the commissioner to institute a process to develop academic standards
for the core subjects of mathematics, science and technology, history and social science,
English, foreign languages and the arts. The standards shall cover grades kindergarten through
twelve and shall clearly set forth the skills, competencies and knowledge expected to be
possessed by all students at the conclusion of individual grades or clusters of grades. The
standards shall be formulated so as to set high expectations of student performance and to
provide clear and specific examples that embody and reflect these high expectations, and shall
be constructed with due regard to the work and recommendations of national organizations, to
the best of similar efforts in other states, and to the level of skills, competencies and knowledge
possessed by typical students in the most educationally advanced nations. The skills,
competencies and knowledge set forth in the standards shall be expressed in terms which lend
themselves to objective measurement, define the performance outcomes expected of both
students directly entering the workforce and of students pursuing higher education, and facilitate
comparisons with students of other states and other nations.
The standards shall provide for instruction in at least the major principles of the Declaration of
Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. They shall be
designed to inculcate respect for the cultural, ethnic and racial diversity of the commonwealth
and for the contributions made by diverse cultural, ethnic and racial groups to the life of the
commonwealth. The standards may provide for instruction in the fundamentals of the history of
the commonwealth as well as the history of working people and the labor movement in the
United States. The standards shall provide for instruction in the issues of nutrition and exercise.
The standards may provide for instruction in the issues of physic;::~! erluc;::Jtion, human
immunodeficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome education, violence
prevention, including teen dating violence, bullying prevention, conflict resolution and drug,
alcohol and tobacco abuse prevention. The board may also include the teaching of family life
skilis, financial management and consumer skills, and basic career exploration and employability
skills. The board may also include in the standards a fundamental knowledge of technology
education and computer science and keyboarding skills; the major principles of environmental
science and environmental protection; and an awareness of global education and geography.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Generall..aws/PartlfTitleXII/Chapter69/Secti~l:J>tf~~
1/3
317/2016
General Laws: CHAPTER 69, Section 10
The board may set standards for student community service-learning activities and programs.
The board may also institute a process for drawing up additional standards in other areas of
education.
Academic standards shall be designed to avoid perpetuating gender, cultural, ethnic or racial
stereotypes. The academic standards shall reflect sensitivity to different learning styles and
impediments to learning. The board shall develop procedures for updating, improving or refining
standards, but shall ensure that the high quality of the standards is maintained. A copy of said
standards shall be submitted to the joint committee on education at least sixty days prior to
taking effect. The standards shall also include criteria for three determinations or certificates as
follows:
(i) The "competency determination" shall be based on the academic standards and curriculum
frameworks for tenth graders in the areas of mathematics, science and technology, history and
social science, foreign languages, and English, and shall represent a determination that a
particular student has demonstrated mastery of a common core of skills, competencies and
knowledge in these areas, as measured by the assessment instruments described in section
one I. Satisfaction of the requirements of the competency determination shall be a condition for
r1igh school graduation. If the particular student's assessment results for the tenth grade do not
demonstrate the required level of competency, the student shall have the right to participate in
the assessment program the following year or years. Students who fail to satisfy the
requirements of the compete_ncy determination may be eligible to receive an educational
assistance plan designed within the confines of the foundation budget to impart the skills,
competencies and knowledge required to attain the required level of mastery. The parent,
guardian or person acting as parent of the student shall have the opportunity to review the
remedial plan with the student's teachers. Nothing in this section shaii be construed to provide a
parent, guardian, person acting as a parent or student with an entitlement to contest the
proposed plan or with a cause of action for educational malpractice if the student fails to obtain a
competency determination.
(ii) The "certificate of mastery" shall be based upon a determination that the recipient has
demonstrated mastery of a comprehensive body of skills, competencies and knowledge
comparable to that possessed by accomplished graduates of high school or equivalent
programs in the most advanced education systems in the world. The criteria for a certificate of
mastery may incorporate a number of factors which may include, but not be limited to, any of the
following: high school graduation standards, superior performance on advanced placement tests
administered by the educational testing service, and demonstrated excellence in areas not
reflected by the state's assessment instruments, such as artistic or literary achievement.
Eligibility for potential receipt of a certificate of mastery shall extend to all secondary students
residing in the commonwealth.
(iii) The "certificate of occupational proficiency" shall be awarded to students who successfully
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneraiLaws/PartlffitleXII/Chapter69/Secti~J~f).':!_n(;
?13
31712016
General Laws: CHAPTER 69, Section 1D
complete a comprehensive education and training program in a particular trade or professional

skill area and shall reflect a determination that the recipient has demonstrated mastery of a core
of skills, competencies and knowledge comparable to that possessed by students of equivalent
age entering the particular trade or profession from the most educationally advanced education
systems in the world. No student may receive said certificate of occupational proficiency without
also having acquired a competency determination.
Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a student from beginning a program of vocational education
before achieving a determination of competency. Such vocational education may begin at grade
nine, ten or eleven. No provision of law shall prohibit concurrent pursuit of a competency
determination and vocational learning. There shall be no cause of action for a parent, guardian
or student who fails to obtain a competency determination, a certificate of mastery or a
certificate of occupational proficiency.
Subject to appropriation, the board shall establish a grant program which shall award grants to
school districts for the costs associated with establishing advanced placement courses. The
board shall promulgate regulations defining the standards of eligibility and other implementation
guidelines.
Subject to appropriation, the board shall establish an advanced placement test fee grant
program which shall award grants to school districts for the reimbursement of application fees
for students based on financial need in order to assist students with paying the fee for advanced
placement tests. The board shall promulgate regulations defining the standards of eligibility and
other implementation guidelines for this program.
https:llmalegislature.govtLawsfGenerallaws/PartlrrltleXIIIChapter69/Section1D/Prir!1
ADD-bl
313
ADDENDUM J
ADD-62
3/7/2016
General Laws: CHAPTER 69, Section 1E
11-4 Print
TITLE XII EDUCATION

EDUCATION
Section lE Curriculum frameworks
Section 1E. The board shall direct the commissioner to institute a process for drawing up
curriculum frameworks for the core subjects covered by the academic standards provided in
section one D. The curriculum frameworks shall present broad pedagogical approaches and
strategies for assisting students in the development of the skills, competencies and knowledge
called for by these standards. The process for drawing up and revising the frameworks shall be
open and consultative, and may include but need not be limited to classroom teachers, parents,
faculty of schools of education, and leading college and university figures in both subject matter
disciplines and pedagogy. In drawing up curriculum frameworks, those involved shall look to
curriculum frameworks, model curricula, content standards, attainment targets, courses of study
and instruction materials in existence or in the process of being developed in the United States
and throughout the world, and shall actively explore collaborative development efforts with other
projects, including but not limited to the national New Standards Project. The curriculum
frameworks shall provide sufficient detail to guide and inform processes for the education,
professional development, certification and evaluation of both active and aspiring teachers. They
shall provide sufficient detail to guide the promulgation of student assessment instruments. They
shall be constructed to guide and assist teachers, administrators, publishers, software
developers and other interested parties in the development and selection of curricula, textbooks,
technology and other instructional materials, and in the design of pedagogical approaches and
techniques for elementary, secondary and vocational-technical schools. The board may review
and recommend instructional materials which it judges to be compatible with the curriculum
frameworks.
Frameworks shall be designed to avoid perpetuating gender, cultural, ethnic or racial
stereotypes. The frameworks shall reflect sensitivity to different learning styles and impediments
to learning. The board shall develop procedures for updating, improving or refining said
curriculum fr3meworks. A copy of said frameworks sha!! be submitted to the jo!nt committee on
education, arts and humanities at least sixty days prior to taking effect.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener al Laws/Part!ITitleXII/C hapter691Secti~BJ5'~n~
1/1
ADDENDUM K
ADD-64
3!712016
General Laws; CHAPTER 69, Section 11
~,...
->nnl

TITLE XII EDUCATION
EDUCATION
Section 11 Performances of public school districts and individual public schools; evaluation system;
assessment instruments; reports
Section 11. The board shall adopt a system for evaluating on an annual basis the performance of
both public school districts and individual public schools. With respect to individual schools, the
system shall include instruments designed to assess the extent to which schools and districts
succeed in improving or fail to improve student performance, as defined by student acquisition
of the skills, competencies and knowledge called for by the academic standards and embodied
in the curriculum frameworks established by the board pursuant to sections one D and one E in
the areas of mathematics, science and technology, history and social science, English, foreign
languages and the arts, as well as by other gauges of student learning judged by the board to
be relevant and meaningful to students, parents, teachers, administrators, and taxpayers.
The system shall be designed both to measure outcomes and results regarding student
performance, and to improve the effectiveness of curriculum and instruction. In its design and
application, the system shall strike a balance among considerations of accuracy, fairness,
expense and administration. The system shall employ a variety of assessment instruments on
either a comprehensive or statistically valid sampling basis. Such instruments shall be criterion
referenced, assessing whether students are meeting the academic standards described in this
chapter. As much as is practicable, especially in the case of students whose performance is
difficult to assess using conventional methods, such instruments shall include consideration of
work samples, projects and portfolios, and shall facilitate authentic and direct gauges of student
performance. Such instruments shall provide the means to compare student performance
among the various school systems and communities in the commonwealth, and between
students in other states and in other nations, especially those nations which compete with the
commonwealth for employment and economic opportunities. The board shall take all appropriate
action to bring about and continue the commonwealth's participation in the assessment activities
of the National .A.ssessment of Educational Progress and in the development of standards and
assessments by the New Standards Program.
In addition, comprehensive diagnostic assessment of individual students shall be conducted at
least in the fourth, eighth and tenth grades. Said diagnostic assessments shall identify academic
achievement levels of all students in order to inform teachers, parents, administrators and the
students themselves, as to individual academic performance. The board shall develop
procedures for updating, improving or refining the assessment system.
https ://m alegi sl ature.gov/laws/Generallaws/PartlfTiUeXII/Chapter69/SecliJriYI)r.!_\
117
317/2016
General laws: CHAPTER 69, Section 11
The assessment instruments shall be designed to avoid gender, cultural, ethnic or racial
stereotypes and shall recognize sensitivity to different learning styles and impediments to
learning. The system shall take into account on a nondiscriminatory basis the cultural and
language diversity of students in the commonwealth and the particular circumstances of
students with special needs. Said system shall comply with federal requirements for
accommodating children with special needs. All potential English proficient students from
language groups in which English language learners programs established under chapter 71A
are offered under chapter seventy-one A shall also be allowed opportunities for assessment of
their performance in the language which best aliows them to demonstrate educational
achievement and mastery of academic standards and curriculum frameworks established under
sections 1D and 1E. For the purposes of this section, a "potential English proficient student"
shall be defined as a student who is not able to perform ordinary class work in English; provided,
however, that no student shall be allowed to be tested in a language other than English for
longer than three consecutive years.
The commissioner is authorized and directed to gather information, including the information
specified herein and such other information as the board shall require, for the purposes of
evaluating individual public schools, school districts, and the efficacy and equity of state and
federal mandated programs. All information filed pursuant to this section shall be filed in the
manner and form prescribed by the department.
The board shall establish and maintain a data system to collect information from school districts
for the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of district evaluation systems in assuring effective
teaching and administrative leadership in the public schools. Such information shall be made
available in the aggregate to the public; provided, however, that any data or information that
school districts, the department or both create, send or receive in connection with educator
evaluation that is evaluative in nature and which may be linked to an individual educator,
including information concerning an educator's formative assessment or evaluation or
summative evaluation or performance rating or the student learning, growth and achievement
data that may be used as part of an individual educator's evaluation, shall be considered
personnel information within the meaning of subclause (c) of clause Twenty-sixth of section 7 of
chapter 4 and shall not be subject to disclosure under said clause Twenty-sixth of said section 7
of said chapter 4 or under section 10 of chapter 66.
Each school district shall maintain individual records on every student and employee. Each
student record shall contain a unique and confidential identification number, basic demographic
information, program and course information, and such other information as the department
shall determine necessary. Said records shall conform to parameters established by the
department.
For the purposes of improving the performance of school districts and individual public schools
and the efficacy and equity of state and federal programs and for the purposes of reducing the
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Generallaws/PartlffitleXII/Chapter69/Secti~Y)'B~t
66
217
317/2016
amount of paperwork to relieve the administrative burden on local districts, each district shall file
with the commissioner once in each 3 year period a comprehensive, 3 year district improvement
plan. The plan shall be developed and submitted in a manner and form prescribed by the
department of education.
The plan shall, to the extent feasible, be designed to fulfill all planning requirements of state and
federal education laws, and shall include, but not be limited to: (a) an analysis of student and
subgroup achievement gaps in core subjects; (b) identification of specific improvement
objectives; (c) a description of the strategic initiatives the district will undertake to achieve its
improvement objectives; and (d) performance benchmarks and processes for evaluating the
effect of district improvement initiatives. Also the plan shall describe the professional
development activities that will support each district improvement initiative and the teacher
induction and mentoring activities that will be undertaken to support successful implementation
of the district's improvement efforts.
On an annual basis, not later than September 1 of each year, each district shall prepare and
have available for state review an annual action plan. The district annual action plan shall
enumerate the specific activities, persons responsible, and timelines for action to be taken as
part of the strategic initiatives set forth in the district's 3 year improvement plan, and shall
identify the staff and financial resources allocated to support these initiatives.
Annually, the principal of each school, in consultation with the school council established
pursuant to this section, shall adopt student performance goals for the schools consistent with
the school performance goals established by the department of education pursuant to state and
federal law and regulations and, consistent with any educational policies established for the
district shall assess the needs of the school in light of those goals and formulate a school plan to
advance such goals and improve student performance. The school's plan to support improved
student performance shall include, but not be limited to, the same components required for
district improvement plans and shall conform to department and district specifications to ensure
that such school improvement plans meet state and federal law requirements. Each school
improvement plan shall be submitted to the superintendent for review and approval not later
than July 1, of the year in which the plan is to be implemented according to a plan development
and review schedule established by the district superintendent. Upon request of the school
committee, copies of the plans shall be made available to the committee for review in order to
__ ,...lllo"Cll;;:)UI v
+h.-..
--1-""..!'"4;~,..-"""'_'-1
,~~:,:+h
vUII;;;.a<:;~~t;;;lll..oJ
VVILII ll l v v
"')l'"),, _ _
~
t""
JCCll
..,.J;-~;-+
; .................... "'
~-~--"'
Ul;:)LllvL lliltJI VVCIIICI H
_,_....., __ ,...~
+L-.-
.....J:P'> ..... : ........ __ ...... - ' __ .. ;_ ....... ,....,_,,....
tJI<:AII CIIIU U I'V UI;;;.U IL..l ell!! IU<ll <lvl!Ui I fJ!<lll,
provided, however, that the superintendent shall have the final approval authority of all school
improvement plans.
The 3?year comprehensive district plan, annual district action plan and annual s9hool
improvement plan shall replace any district and school plans previously required under the
education reform including, but not limited to, the school improvement plans required by section
59C of chapter 71, the provisional educator program plan required by section 38G of chapter 71,
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Genera!Laws/Part!rritleXII/Chapter69/Secti~~i~t
67
3!7
317/2016
the professional development plan required by section 38Q of chapter 71, the curriculum
accommodation plan required by section 3801/2 of chapter 71, the MCAS success plan, if any,
required under this section and any other report or plan called for by the Generai Laws or
regulation, which, in the professional opinion of the commissioner, would be most effectively
presented as part of the coordinated district or school plan for improving student achievement.
The department shall identify any additional reports or plans called for by any general law or
regulation which can be incorporated into this single filing in order to reduce paperwork and
eliminate duplication.
Each school district in which more than 20 per cent of the students score below level two on the
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System exam, in this paragraph called MCAS, shall
submit an MCAS success plan to the department. The plan shall describe the school district's
strategies for helping each student to master the skills, competencies and knowledge required
for the competency determination described in subparagraph (i) of the fourth paragraph of
section 1D. The department shall determine the elements that shall be required to be included in
such plan. These elements may include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) a plan to assess
each student's strengths, weaknesses and needs; (b) a plan to use summer school, after school
and other additional support to provide each child with the assistance needed; and (c) a plan for
involving the parents of students as described in said subparagraph (i) of said fourth paragraph
of said section 1D. The department shall examine each district's plan and determine if it has a
reasonable prospect of significantly reducing the school district's failure rates. The department
shali coordinate oversight of the iviCAS success plans with existing audit and oversight functions
and with the MCAS grant program.
Each school district shall file a report with the department every year by a date and in a format
determined by the board. Said report shall include, but not be limited to, the foilowing:
(a) an outline of the curriculum and graduation requirements of the district;
(b) pupil/teacher ratios and class size policy and practice;
(c) teacher and administrator evaluation procedures;
(d) statistics, policies, and procedures relative to truancy and dropouts;
(e) statistics, policies, and procedures relative to expulsions and in-school and out-of-school
suspensions;
(f) percent of school-age children attending public schools;

(g) racial composition of teaching and administrative staff;
https:/lmalegislature.gov/Laws/Generallaws/PartlfTitleXII/Chapter69/Secti~Y!j!_:l~
4ri
3!7/2016
General Laws: CHAPTER 69, Section 11.
(h) enrollment and average daily attendance;

(i) the annual budgets and expenditures for both the district and the individual schools in the
district.
Each school district shall file a description of the following instructional procedures and
programs with the department every year:
(a) art and music programs;
(b) technology education;
(c) programs for gifted and talented students;
(d) adult education programs;
(e) library and media facilities;
(f) condition of instructional materials including textbooks, workbooks, audio-visual materials,
and laboratory materials;
(g) types and condition of computers and computer software;

(h) basic skills remediation programs;
(i) drug, tobacco and alcohol abuse programs;
U) multi-cultural education training for students and teachers;
(k) global education; and
(I) nutrition and wellness programs.
Each school district and charter school shall file an annual report for the current school year
regarding implementation of chapter 71 B with the department every November 1 first in a format
determined by the board. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the following:?
(a) the number of children receiving services pursuant to said chapter 71 B within each disability
category as set forth in section 1 of said chapter l1 B;
(b) the number of children, by grade level, within each such disability category and the costs of
services provided by each such category for such children receiving their education in a publicly
operated day school program;
https:/fmaleglslature.gov/Laws/Generallaws/Parti/TitleXII/Chapter69/Section11/Print
ADD- 6 9
517
3/712016
(c) the number of children, by grade level, within each such disability category and the costs of
services provided by each such category for such children receiving their education in a private
day setting;
(d) the number of children, by grade level, within each such disability category and the costs of
services provided by each such category for such children receiving their education in a private
residential setting;
(e) the number of children who remain in the regular education program full time; the number of
children who are removed from the regular classroom for up to 25 per cent of the day; the
number of children who are removed from the regular classroom between 25 and 60 per cent of
the day;
(f) the number of children who are placed in substantially separate classrooms on a regular
education school site;
(g) the number of children, ages three and four, who are educated in integrated and separate
classrooms; and the assignment by sex, national origin, economic status, race and religion, of
children by age level to special education classes and the distribution of children residing in the
district by sex, national origin, economic status, race and religion of children by age level; and
(h) the number of children, by grade level, receiving special education services who have limited
English proficiency.
Each school district and charter school shall furnish in a timely manner such additional
information as the department shall request.
Each school district shall furnish to the department in a timely manner such additional
information as the department shall request.
Each school district required to provide an English language learners program under chapter
71A shall file the following information with the department annually:
(a) the type of English language learners programs provided;
(b) with regard to limited English proficient students (i) the number enrolled in each type of
English language learners program; (ii) the number enrolled in English as a second language
who are not enrolled in another English language learners program; (iii) the results of basic
skills, curriculum assessment, achievement and language proficiency testing, whether
administered in English or in the native language; (iv) the absentee, suspension, expulsion,
dropout and promotion rates; and (v) the number of years each iimited Engiish proficient student
has been enrolled in an English language learners program;
https:llmalegislature.gov/Laws/GeneraiLaws/Part!!TitleXI!!Chapter69/Section11/Print
ADD-70
6t7
3/7/2016
(c) the number of students each year who have enrolled in institutions of higher education and
were formerly enrolled in an English language learners program;
(d) the academic progress in regular education of students who have completed an English
language learners program;
(e) for each limited English proficient student receiving special education, the number of years in
the school district prior to special education evaluation and the movement in special education
programs by program placement;
(f) the number of limited English proficient students enrolled in programs of occupational or
vocational education;
(g) the name, national origin, native language, certificates held, language proficiency, grade
levels and subjects taught by each teacher of an English language learners program, bilingual
aides or paraprofessionals, bilingual guidance or adjustment counselors and bilingual school
psychologists;
(h) the per pupil expenditures for each full time equivalent student enrolled in an English
language learners program;
(i) the sources and amounts of all funds expended on students enrolled in English language
learners programs, broken down by local, state and federal sources, and whether any such
funds expended supplanted, rather than supplemented, the local school district obligation; the
participation of parents through parent advisory councils; and
U) whether there were any complaints filed with any federal or state court or administrative
agency, since the program's inception, concerning the compliance with federal or state minimum
legal requirements; the disposition of such complaint and the monitoring and evaluation of any
such agreement or court order relative to such complaint.
Said information shall be filed in the form of the total for the school district as well as categorized
by school, grade and language.
The commissioner annually shall analyze and publish data reported by school districts under
this section regarding l::::nghsh ianguage iearners programs and limited Engilsh proficient
students. Publication shall include, but need not be limited to, availability on the department's
worldwide web site. The commissioner shall submit annually a report to the joint committee on
education, arts and humanities on such data on a statewide and school district basis, including,
but not limited to, by language group and type of English language learners program.
https:!/malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneraiLaws/Parti/TitleXII/Chapter69/SectiJr8'br~~
717

SJC-12064 01 Appellant Gray Brief

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SJC-12064 01 Appellant Gray Brief

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

"upreme Jubitial Qeourt

STEPHANIE GRAY, ROBERT ANTONUCCI, BILL WALCZAK, DIANNE

ON RESERVATION AND REPORT FROM THE SUPREME JUDICIAL

Kevin C. Conroy (BBO No. 644894)

Statement of the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

THE PETITION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 48

THE PETITION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 48

III. THE PETITION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 48

THE PETITION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 48

Addendum D: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and

Abdow v. Attorney General,

Bowe v. Secretary of Commonwealth,

Carney v. Attorney General,

Cohen v. Attorney General,

Dimino v. Secretary of the Commonwealth,

Massachusetts Teachers Association v. Secretary

Mazzone v. Attorney General,

In re Opinion of the Justices,

Opinion of the Justices,

Opinion of the Justices to the House of

Opinion of the Justices to the House of

Paisner v. Attorney General,

Sears v. Treasurer & Receiver General,

Student Number 9 v. Board of Education,

Town of Canton v. Commissioner of Massachusetts

Mass. Const. amend. Art. 48, II

Const. amend Art.

Mass . Cons t . amend Art . 81,

M.G.L. c. 71, 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ... 34

Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1969) ........... 17

Development Process, Common Core State Standards,

Whether the Attorney General erred in certifying

Initiative Petition No. 15-12, entitled "Initiative

(the "Petition"), for inclusion

on the State election ballot in November 2016.

Whether the Attorney General erred in certifying

the Petition because the Petition does not propose a

Whether the Attorney General erred in certifying

the Petition because the Petition contains subjects

Whether the Attorney General erred in certifying

the Petition because the Petition is not otherwise in

Plaintiffs seek review of a proposed ballot

state leaders and educators at the initiative of the

The Common Core Standards

define learning goals for each grade level, so

See Development Process, Common Core State Standards,

See Frequently Asked Questions, Common Core State

and curriculum in public schools.

registered voters who submitted the Petition (the

Petition seeks to do three things: 1) "rescind" a July

Opinion of the Justices to the House of

Representatives, 422 Mass. 1212, 1219 (1996)

that the Court requires "strict adherence to the

The Initiative and Referendum was

one of the most debated issues at the Constitutional

See Cohen v. Attorney Gen.,

357 Mass. 564, 572 (1970).

The people of the

Commonwealth, in adopting Article 48, appreciated the

of the initiative petition.

When the people "seek to

enact laws by direct popular vote, they must do so in

Opinion of the Justices, 422 Mass. at