This story was produced as part of ThreeSixty Journalism’s 2026 Capitol Reporting Workshop for Minnesota youth, with financial support from the Saint Paul & Minnesota Foundation.
For Hennepin County Commissioner and former Minnesota state representative Heather Edelson, the stakes of literacy policy are not merely academic—they are deeply personal. Growing up, Edelson grappled with the isolating, frustrating reality of dyslexia. "I didn’t really read well until probably late middle school," she recalls. "It was really challenging."
Edelson’s childhood struggle is one shared by a growing number of Minnesota students. As the state grapples with a steady decline in reading proficiency—with third-grade literacy rates dropping from roughly 56% in 2013 to approximately 46% today—policymakers have turned their attention toward a massive overhaul of how the state’s children are taught to read. The result is the READ Act, a legislative centerpiece that has sparked a fierce debate over pedagogical science, equity in curriculum, and the role of the state in deciding whether a child is ready to advance to the next grade.
The Literacy Crisis: Data and Discontent
The decline in literacy rates is not just a statistical anomaly; it is a signal of a system in flux. According to data from Compass Education, the erosion of foundational reading skills has persisted for over a decade. When Edelson entered the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2018, she began to scrutinize the state’s existing policy, "Read Well by Third Grade." She found the framework insufficient, arguing that it focused too narrowly on a single benchmark rather than fostering a continuous, robust developmental path for literacy.
As Democrats gained full control of the state government following the 2022 midterms, the political window to overhaul these standards opened. Working in tandem with Sen. Erin Maye Quade (DFL-Apple Valley), Edelson authored the READ Act, a bill designed to transition the state toward evidence-based literacy instruction.
However, the policy was not developed in a vacuum. During the drafting phase, educators raised alarms about the quality of existing curricula. Beyond the need for better phonics, teachers pointed to problematic representations in textbooks. Some materials were criticized for perpetuating inaccurate and harmful stereotypes of African American and Native American children, prompting a push for more inclusive and culturally responsive educational resources as part of the broader reform package.
A Chronology of Reform: From READ Act to READ Act 2.0
The trajectory of Minnesota’s literacy policy moved rapidly from proposal to implementation.
2023: The Initial Mandate
In 2023, Governor Tim Walz signed the first version of the READ Act into law. The legislation was ambitious, aiming to move classrooms away from outdated instructional models and toward structured, science-based literacy programs. To facilitate this, the state appropriated approximately $70 million, earmarked for school districts to overhaul their materials and provide intensive professional development for teachers.
2024: Refinement and "READ Act 2.0"
No sooner had the ink dried than legislators began receiving feedback from the front lines. Teachers reported that while the intent was sound, the implementation required further support and specific funding for teacher training. In response, Edelson and Maye Quade introduced an updated version of the legislation in 2024, colloquially known as "READ Act 2.0." This revision funneled additional resources into teacher professional development, ensuring that instructors had the time and tools to master science-based programming, with a renewed emphasis on phonics and word study.
The Classroom Perspective: Putting Science into Practice
For educators like Julie Cronin, a second-grade teacher in the Robbinsdale school district, the impact of these changes has been tangible. Cronin credits programs like Bridge to Read and LETRS for providing a concrete framework to teach students how to decode language.
"They get it. They get the rules," Cronin said, noting that students are now better equipped to break apart words and blend sounds—a stark departure from the previous "balanced literacy" approaches that often relied on context clues rather than decoding skills.
Legislators, too, have reported positive feedback from site visits. Sen. Steve Cwodzinski (DFL-Eden Prairie), who chairs the Senate Education Policy Committee, has become a vocal proponent of the shift. "When we visit grade schools and you see the kids reading words that I didn’t know until I was in college, it’s kind of amazing," Cwodzinski said. "So, it’s working."
The Pivot to Politics: The Debate Over Retention
Despite the legislative successes and positive classroom anecdotes, the READ Act has not escaped partisan friction. Republican lawmakers, led by Sens. Michael Holmstrom, Jordan Rasmusson, and Julia Coleman, have introduced a counter-proposal: the READ Act Interventions bill.
The core of this Republican-led initiative is the mandatory creation of individualized learning plans for students who fall below grade-level proficiency. Most controversially, the bill would require schools to hold back students who fail to meet specific reading benchmarks if it is deemed to be in the "student’s best interest."
Senator Holmstrom argues that the current system does a disservice to children by pushing them forward when they are not prepared. "They’re not going to keep up if we let them," Holmstrom said. He contends that he has heard from numerous teachers who believe that, under the current, more lenient policy, students are falling through the cracks, advancing to higher grades with insufficient foundational skills.
The Counter-Argument: Is Retention the Solution?
The proposal for mandatory retention has met with stiff resistance from educators and the original authors of the READ Act. Mackenzie Mohen-VonAhnen, a teacher at Centennial Elementary in Richfield, argues that grade retention is an outdated and potentially destructive practice.
"That would be harmful for students, you know, like, mentally and socially," Mohen-VonAhnen said, echoing a body of educational research that suggests retention can negatively impact a student’s long-term academic trajectory and self-esteem.
Edelson herself, drawing on her own experience of being held back in third grade, remains a staunch opponent of the practice. She notes that the original READ Act was deliberately crafted to avoid mandatory retention, favoring instead a model of early, intensive intervention and structured support throughout the school year.
Implications: A Divided Capitol
The clash over the READ Act Interventions bill serves as a microcosm of the broader ideological divide in the Minnesota Legislature. With the state government closely divided, the path forward for significant changes to the existing literacy law remains murky.
Even some proponents of the Republican-led interventions acknowledge the reality of the current political climate. Given the split in the legislature, the bill is widely considered unlikely to pass during the current session. Yet, the debate itself highlights the ongoing tension between two different philosophies of education: one that prioritizes standardized accountability through retention, and another that emphasizes systematic, evidence-based instructional reform as the primary vehicle for student success.
As Minnesota continues to implement the READ Act, the focus will remain on whether these systemic changes can effectively move the needle on literacy rates. For students, teachers, and parents, the ultimate metric will be simple: the ability of the next generation to read with confidence and comprehension. For policymakers, the challenge remains balancing the urgent need for results with the complex, multifaceted reality of the classroom.
The READ Act has set the stage for a new era in Minnesota education, but the final chapter on how the state supports its most vulnerable readers is still being written.
