Opinion | Innovation without literacy is impossible

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

•••

Minnesota prides itself on being a state of innovators and entrepreneurs. We are home to Fortune 500 corporations, world-class health care, and one of the most active research and startup ecosystems in the country. We celebrate our ability to solve complex problems. And yet, we have failed to apply that same innovation to education. It is where Minnesota, a state synonymous with invention, has become in too many ways Minne-SLOW-ta.

When it comes to the most foundational skill required for full participation in civic and economic life — the ability to read — Minnesota is no longer leading. In 2024, fewer than half of Minnesota’s third-graders reached proficiency on the MCA, our own state assessment. On the 2024 NAEP, the nation’s “Report Card,” Minnesota students fell below the national average. This is a historic reversal for a state once viewed as a leader in literacy and education. Outcomes for Black, Indigenous, multilingual learners and children with disabilities or neurodivergent profiles are even lower — inequities that contradict our values and our self-image. Not very “Minnesota nice.”

Each year, thousands of children advance to third, fourth and fifth grade without mastery of basic reading, writing and spelling skills. This is not because they are incapable learners, nor because all families are disengaged. It is because the instructional systems surrounding them remain slow to adapt to what decades of research confirm: Literacy is not developmental luck. Reading must be taught and requires explicit, systematic instruction rooted in evidence.

The barriers are well known:

While the science of reading is settled, practice remains uneven. Some students receive structured literacy; others still receive methods proven to be ineffective.

Interventions in upper grades are costly and too late. Preventing reading failure in K-3 is both equitable and more cost-effective.

Current legislation is well-intentioned but it will take time. Training resources are lost with teacher turnover. Even strong policy collapses under insufficient support for schools doing their best amid strained capacity.

If this were health care or medical device innovation, industries in which Minnesota leads confidently, those industry leaders would not tolerate sluggish adoption of newly approved and proven practices. When research improves surgical outcomes, hospitals implement them quickly. If 3M develops a safer adhesive or Medtronic creates a better device, it does not sit on a shelf for decades. Innovation moves to action. Except in reading, where the cost for our slow response is paid by Minnesota’s children.

Early literacy is a race against the clock. In K-3, children learn to read. In grade three, instruction flips, shifting to “reading to learn.” Once that critical learning window closes, catching up requires exponentially more intervention and costly resources, an approach that often fails. The Annie E. Casey Foundation notes, “Third grade reading proficiency is a leading predictor of educational attainment, earnings, civic participation, and long-term well-being.” Children who fall behind early remain behind. Shame on us.

This is a solvable crisis. We are not waiting for more research or additional proof; all that’s needed is coordinated leadership and courage to lead again.