Opinion | Minnesota’s READ Act needs improvement

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Earlier this year, Peter Hutchinson, former Minneapolis Public Schools superintendent, raised concern in a Star Tribune commentary about the academic decline of students in Minnesota particularly in reading (“Mississippi and Louisiana improved reading scores. We in Minnesota haven’t — yet,” May 9). Minnesota’s is part of a broader, nearly complete national decline described in recent high-profile opinion pieces by David Brooks in the New York Times and Idrees Kahloon in the Atlantic.

Hutchinson’s commentary was an engaging piece in which he briefly reported Minnesota’s alarmingly low rates of reading proficiency, observed resistance to the implementation of Minnesota’s important science of reading law and recommended several improvements. His guidance is informed and sensible, novel yet intuitive, and I hope everything he suggests is enacted. If his advice is taken seriously, then he offers cautious optimism that Minnesota’s students might enjoy the trajectory of improved reading proficiency enjoyed by students in Mississippi, whose miraculous success led to a wave of similar laws getting passed in nearly 40 states including Minnesota.

Unfortunately, Minnesota’s READ Act is deficient in several ways unaddressed by Hutchinson. Until it is improved, even Hutchinson’s cautious optimism seems unwarranted.

A comparison of Minnesota’s and Mississippi’s science of reading laws shows that Minnesota’s ersatz legislation will not replicate Mississippi’s success. Before considering the important differences between the two laws, first consider the radically different outcomes the two state’s policymakers have produced, then ask yourself the extent to which you want our policymakers to stick to or stray from Mississippi’s proven blueprint.

Given where we have gotten ourselves, we would do better to more closely follow Mississippi’s example and not arrogate to ourselves policycraft we demonstrably lack. Now, consider what Mississippi’s law entails and our READ Act avoids.

Retention is effective. One 2023 study in Mississippi followed up on the first cohort of retained third-graders in sixth grade. Researchers compared the retained cohort with students who barely passed. As sixth-graders, retained students had average English Language Arts (ELA) scores that were 1.2 standard deviations above their promoted counterparts. Another way to say this is that the average ELA score of retained students is better than the scores of about 88% of promoted students. This difference was driven largely by Black and Latino students. In other words, this is a gap-closing policy. Indiana copied Mississippi’s retention policy and saw third-grade literacy scores jump after one year.

Mississippi’s LBPA also requires that retained students are assigned to highly effective teachers. Currently, Minnesota statute does not require schools to identify highly effective teachers in any systematic way. Unlike Mississippi’s Professional Growth System (PGS), Minnesota’s teacher evaluation statutes (122A.40 and 122A.41) neither specify the data that should be collected for teacher performance evaluation nor require schools to report teacher performance data to the state. Because of this, the state is unable to monitor how equitably districts distribute their best teachers throughout their schools, much less ensure that our most struggling readers get the best teachers. Our hands-off approach has contributed to our students’ academic decline. Again, let’s follow Mississippi’s lead and replicate what works — let’s change the statute so that we can identify highly effective teachers and enroll struggling students in their classes.

Mississippi’s LBPA also requires students in teacher preparation programs to pass a licensure test rated by the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) as “strong.” Minnesota’s READ Act did not improve our current teacher licensing examination. A provision stipulating a teacher licensure exam focusing on the science of reading was slashed from the bill in conference committee. Later, a bipartisan amendment to the READ Act requiring such a test died in the Senate Education Policy Committee. This repeated refusal to improve the teacher licensure examination is an example of the resistance Hutchinson referred to. Minnesota’s teacher licensure examination falls short with respect to the science of reading. The NCTQ’s helpful report on state teacher licensing examinations explains that our test does not thoroughly assess teacher candidates’ knowledge of foundational reading skills. Neither does it address how to support struggling readers, advanced readers, or English language learners. And it may contain test items that are not consistent with current research. Improving this test should be easy. Once the READ Act is amended accordingly, we simply need to buy a better test. This is incredibly important. Here’s why.

Minnesota’s READ Act requires teacher preparation programs to prepare teachers in the science of reading. However, the Professional Educators Licensing and Standards Board found only half of elementary teacher preparation programs in compliance. Also disheartening: Only 1 of 6 audited programs offering the Teacher of Reading license was found in compliance. Again, Hutchinson’s observation of systemic resistance is clear. Colleges and universities need to fix their teacher preparation programs. If teachers need to pass a rigorous test demonstrating their knowledge of the science of reading, teacher preparation programs will need to compete on those terms. The bottom lines of teacher preparation programs with lower passing rates would suffer, which might be a more effective impetus to change than lawful compliance. In the absence of reliable teacher preparation programs, it becomes the responsibility of districts to perpetually budget for new teacher training in the science of reading. Districts should not have to carry this costly burden.

Mississippi has given the rest of the country a blueprint for education reform. The question is whether the Legislature, the governor and state agencies are humble and brave enough to follow it. If we get this right — if we work together in a nonpartisan fashion to help Minnesota’s kids today — hopefully, someday in the future, they’ll be able to read all about it.