Minnesota’s troubling and persistent literacy challenges finally resulted in action during the 2023 legislative session when the state passed the Reading to Ensure Academic Development (READ) Act.
Inspired by the success Mississippi has had with its early reading instruction, the READ Act overhauled the state’s approach to literacy education, requiring teacher preparation programs, school districts, and educators to use “evidence-based” reading strategies in instruction with the goal of every child reading at or above grade level every year beginning in kindergarten. Mandatory K-3 screenings for dyslexia, evidence-based interventions, and local literacy plans are also included to help achieve reading objectives.
While a positive step forward, Minnesota policymakers must remember that Mississippi’s education turnaround did not happen overnight, or in a few years, or as a result of any single policy. As I document here, The Magnolia State is at least a decade ahead of The North Star State on fixing literacy, with gains evident across different student demographics. If not careful, the READ Act could become like other state-based education reform that came before it — a paper commitment without the follow-through.
NAEP Fourth-Grade Reading
Minnesota and Mississippi Comparison
Therefore, in addition to enforcing the READ Act, Minnesota policymakers would do well to consider additional policy to strengthen what is already on the books.
According to a report by the Progressive Policy Institute, Mississippi’s transformation rests on four policy pillars: standards, testing, and accountability; consequences for poor performance; evidence-informed instructional policy; and support for implementation. All of which, according to the report, are variations on the central theme of holding the state accountable for higher expectations.
Before Minnesota can fully benefit from evidence-based reading instruction, it needs to honestly assess whether its academic standards and assessments are measuring what they claim to. Mississippi’s turnaround began with a hard look at expectations and state leaders confronting the fact that their standards were not very rigorous. Policymakers should require an independent audit of whether Minnesota’s current K-3 standards and benchmarks are as rigorous as they need to be. Perhaps looking at what the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) expects fourth-graders to master is a good starting point.
Mississippi’s third-grade retention component, which prevents students who cannot read from being passed along, is a defining feature of the state’s accountability system. Minnesota’s READ Act does not include a mandatory retention policy. While debated policy, well-crafted third-grade retention laws, especially when paired with additional support policy like Mississippi’s, can be an effective piece of literacy reform packages and a powerful motivational tool that can change adult behaviors.
But retention without backup is only one part of accountability. Mississippi also built meaningful consequences into its system at the district level. The state was given authority to intervene in, and ultimately take over, chronically failing districts. According to PPI, the threat of state intervention helped push districts to improve before formal takeovers became necessary.
Minnesota does identify its lowest-performing schools and districts through its North Star accountability system, but identification is not the same as accountability. North Star acts more as a support-delivery mechanism, prioritizing resources over consequences. If a school does not exit comprehensive support and improvement status, it remains in that status with more rigorous interventions, but the system stops short of more forceful consequences like school closure, state takeover, or leadership removal. This is distinctly different from Mississippi’s approach. Minnesota should consider building a similar escalating consequence structure into its North Star system.
But even the strongest law means nothing if it is not well executed and fully implemented. Buy-in to the new components the READ Act requires will be critical to its success. For example, teacher preparation programs must ditch any outdated — and wrong — methods of teaching reading and give teacher candidates more opportunity to practice applying their knowledge of reading concepts. (A new national report from the Fordham Institute has found that nearly one-third of teachers are still using discredited reading methods.) Independent annual audits of local literacy plans would encourage more accountability on whether or not the changes are being incorporated.
Mississippi’s success is not a miracle, contends PPI, but the result of sound policies that were adopted in sequence and not abandoned when the next “big idea” came along. It’s a lesson that applies directly to Minnesota, a state with a past of adopting well-intentioned reforms that never materialize. If the READ Act is not treated carefully, it too will end up on that list, and another generation of Minnesota students will be left with inadequate literacy skills.
________________
