The jury is still out on whether or not the literacy training early-grade teachers receive in Minnesota is actually helping them teach more effectively.
Minnesota’s 2023 READ Act set out to reform and update the state’s early literacy education processes. One key reform component was that of mandatory evidence-based literacy instruction training for educators, who too often have received inaccurate or insufficient training on the science of literacy. This was a high priority. Research shows that a good teacher matters more to student achievement than any other aspect of their schooling experience.
The other side of the coin: if teachers aren’t trained well in the science of literacy, then they can’t educate students adequately. The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) selection of approved teacher training programs warrants close scrutiny. Two out of the three professional development programs approved by the Minnesota Department of Education for Phase 1 educators are new and largely unproven.
(The term “Phase 1 educator” denotes a teacher who works in a high-priority area for early literacy reform. Phase 1 educators include all K-5 classroom educators, reading interventionists, PK-5 curriculum directors, and special education educators responsible for reading instruction.)
The READ Act set a legislative requirement that all Phase 1 educators must complete evidence-based training on the science and teaching of early literacy by July 1, 2026. A long-delayed but recently released report to the legislature announced that 64 percent of all Phase 1 educators had completed their training, and 25 percent were in the process of completing their training. (Let’s hope that the remaining 11 percent begin their training by the July 1 deadline!) Unfortunately, it did not communicate which training programs districts chose and how many teachers had been educated by each program. Two training programs communicated their attendance on publicly available web pages.
One MDE-approved teacher training program is the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) program. LETRS is a well-regarded program and has been used by many other states, including Mississippi. LETRS has been studied at least 21 times, four of which were peer reviewed publications. Research on the efficacy of LETRS suggests that the training increases teacher knowledge and can change teacher practice, especially when coupled with long-term coaching and systemic structural support. LETRS is a strong teacher training program for districts to choose.
Another MDE-approved program has far less research backing. The Online Language and Literacy Academy (OL&LA) was created by well-known literacy consulting organization CORE in 2024. OL&LA has not undergone any peer-reviewed research, but is accredited by the International Dyslexia Association. According to CORE materials, the program has trained the largest number of teachers in Minnesota. CORE’s robust consulting and coaching network likely made this teacher training course attractive to MDE, which needed to recommend programs able to train thousands of teachers quickly. This brand-new program should undergo rigorous peer-review testing as soon as possible, before more Minnesota teachers receive the training.
The last MDE-approved program, Advancing Language and Literacy (CAREIALL) created by the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota, is similarly new and untested, as the program was created by researchers in response to the 2023 READ Act. However, CAREIALL boasts a strong status as an International Dyslexia Association accredited program. While peer-reviewed research is needed to cement trust in the CAREIALL program, it is highly appropriate that Minnesota researchers have created a bespoke program for Minnesota’s educators. It is to be hoped that the U’s resources will enable rigorous peer-review testing to be conducted quickly. The CAREIALL website notes that there have been over 6,000 participants in the teacher training program so far, representing a small fraction of the 33,386 Phase 1 educators that have received teacher training.
A strong teacher training program is incredibly important, but implementation and ongoing support also matters. LETRS, for example, has largely been found to be effective when schools combine teacher training with structural change. The good news for Minnesota is that the READ Act mandated the creation of a network of literacy coaches and district-level support. The new Regional Literacy Network (RLN), according to the recent READ Act report, is “composed of nine literacy leads and 20 literacy coaches who are located across each of the 9 Minnesota service cooperatives.” Plus, each school district is required to submit a Local Literacy Plan to the state and designate one person as a District/Charter Literacy Lead. Further expansion of Minnesota’s teacher support network could mitigate concerns about unproven training curricula.
The efficacy of the coaching program depends, of course, on each school district’s ability to successfully implement longterm structural reform and ongoing teacher coaching. Well-regarded education policy organization Excel In Ed has raised a red flag of warning about the potential inadequacies of Minnesota’s teacher coaching program, as literacy coaches are assigned to each district, not each elementary school.
Minnesota has spent a significant amount of time and money on the essential work of training Phase 1 teachers for strong early literacy pedagogy. The state will soon concentrate on training Phase 2 teachers, mainly teachers of grades 4-12 who provide reading instruction.
No approved professional development program is perfect, and district leaders have to choose between the lengthy but tested LETRS program, or the new OL&LA and CAREIALL programs. Length is likely a factor: estimated completion time for LETRS (86-116 hours) is much higher than CAREIALL (45-67 hours) and much more so than OL&LA (45-57 hours). Given those choices, it’s understandable but concerning that the bulk of Phase 1 training (as reported by OL&LA developers) was spent on the brand new, untested OL&LA program. If studies show that the OL&LA program (or the CAREIALL program) is highly effective, then we’ll breathe a sigh of relief. But for now, districts should think long and hard before entrusting their educators to an untested training program.
