"Louisiana and Mississippi have more kids in poverty, spend less per student, have similar class sizes and increased spending at roughly the same rate as Minnesota — yet they both managed to improve outcomes for their kids significantly, while Minnesota made things worse," Peter Hutchinson writes. "Why?" (iStock)

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

•••

Here’s a challenge. Think of all the things that schools in Mississippi and Louisiana are better at than schools here in Minnesota. Their kids are now more proficient in reading than our kids. Since 2013 both of those states have consistently improved their reading results. Since 2013 Minnesota’s reading results have gotten consistently worse to the point where 70% of our fourth grade students are not proficient in reading.

How could that be? Is it because the kids in those states are less likely to be poor or non-English speakers? No. The poverty rate in Mississippi and Louisiana is more than twice that in Minnesota. The rates of students below the poverty rate and non-English speakers in each state, respectively:

Minnesota: 11%, 14%
Louisiana: 26%, 5%
Mississippi: 26%, 6%

Is it because those states spend more to educate their kids? No. Spending per pupil in Minnesota exceeds that in Louisiana by 10% and in Mississippi by 33%. The 2023 figures per student:

Minnesota: $16,117
Louisiana: $14,645
Mississippi: $12,093

Is it because the class sizes in those states are smaller? No. Mississippi’s are smaller, but Louisiana’s are bigger. The 2023 figures for pupils per teacher:

Minnesota: 15.5
Louisiana: 17.5
Mississippi: 13

Is it because those states increased their spending on schools faster than Minnesota? No. Minnesota increased spending per pupil by 45% over 10 years, and reading proficiency went down by 10 percentage points, while Louisiana and Mississippi increased their spending between 40% and 49%, and reading proficiency went up by 10 percentage points. The 10-year percent spending increase and change in reading proficiency, respectively:

Minnesota: 45%, -10 percentage points
Louisiana: 40%, 10 percentage points
Mississippi: 49%, 10 percentage points

Louisiana and Mississippi have more kids in poverty, spend less per student, have similar class sizes and increased spending at roughly the same rate as Minnesota — yet they both managed to improve outcomes for their kids significantly, while Minnesota made things worse. Why?

Is it because they committed themselves to the Science of Reading? Yes. The years each state did that:

• Minnesota: 2023

• Louisiana: 2021

• Mississippi: 2013

We are far behind and falling fast.

The Science of Reading is a commonsense approach that is backed by evidence. It starts by using phonics to allow beginning readers to turn letters on the page into words they can say and connect to the things they represent. Thus T-A-B-L-E becomes a table in their kitchen. Once that foundation is built through phonics, the science of reading focuses on fluency, vocabulary development and, ultimately, reading comprehension. And it works. Research evidence shows that 95% of students can become proficient readers. For decades we had not used the Science of Reading, and our children and adults are paying the price.

Finally in 2023 the Legislature adopted and the governor signed the Minnesota READ Act. The act required that the Science of Reading be used as the basis for teaching reading in our schools. It also required that all our teachers be trained in the Science of Reading, that all schools adopt an appropriate curriculum and use appropriate learning materials, that all colleges that train teachers train them in the Science of Reading, and that assessments be used to track and report progress.

That was in 2023. Now in 2025 there has been progress, but it is slow and uneven. The Minnesota Department of Education has reported that we won’t see the full impact of the READ Act in our reading scores until 2030 — five years from now! It will be the end of the 2027 school year before all current teachers complete required training. And in one district, teachers who “completed” the training were found to have been cheating. Only about one-third of school districts had adopted a curriculum that was highly aligned with the requirements of the Science of Reading by the end of last year. And only about half of the college programs that prepare future teachers have been found in compliance. The organization that reviews and approves these programs found that:

Programs are adding components specific to the Science of Reading while maintaining practices and instruction that are contradictory to the approach and are not evidence-based.
Many programs are using texts and other resources that promote practices that are not evidence-based.

The pace is slow because the work is hard, requires time and resources, and, like any big change, has generated resistance. In response there are now proposals in the Minnesota Legislature to slow implementation of the READ Act and even to make it optional. Thankfully there are other proposals that increase the resources available to support implementation.

We are acting like we have time to correct what is wrong with reading in Minnesota. We do not. Back in 2013 we already had 60% of children not reading proficiently. That, amazingly enough, made us above average. So, we sat on our hands and told ourselves that, well, at least we’re better than them. And then we made things worse — so bad that we are not better than them.

We’ve tried a reasonable path — it hasn’t worked. Now is the time to be unreasonable. That would mean:

Every teacher gets trained this summer and demonstrates their proficiency. If they do, they get certified as a teacher parents would want to teach their children and get a salary increase; if they don’t, their license to teach would be classified as probationary until they do.
Every school district adopts an approved curriculum and acquires appropriate learning materials by next fall. If they do, the state fully reimburses their cost; if they don’t, the state does it for them and charges them for the cost.
Every teacher training program effectively prepares teachers to successfully achieve proficiency in reading for their students by next fall. If they do, they and their graduates get certified as preferred programs and preferred teachers; if they don’t, they get shut down.
The Legislature provides the resources to make these things necessary and possible in a recorded vote that lets us know who stepped up and who stepped back.
The governor, the commissioner of education and the superintendents of our schools stake their jobs on making this happen.

There will be those who think these things are unreasonable. On the schedule we are on, the 70% of our fourth-graders who cannot read proficiently will be in high school by the time we see the results of implementing the READ Act. They cannot wait that long, and neither should we.

Peter Hutchinson is a former superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools, former Minnesota finance commissioner and former Independence Party candidate for governor. His Substack newsletter “Notes from the Independent Center” is at theindependentcenter.substack.com, where this article first appeared.