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 state representative Heather Edelson, the struggle for literacy is not merely a policy objective—it is a deeply personal memory. Growing up with dyslexia, Edelson spent her formative years in a state of academic limbo.
“I didn’t really read well until probably late middle school,” Edelson recalled. “It was really challenging.” Her childhood experience with the traditional education system, which often left struggling readers to navigate complex texts without adequate intervention, serves as the cornerstone of her legislative efforts today. Edelson’s story is a microcosm of a larger, systemic crisis in Minnesota, where literacy rates have trended downward for over a decade, sparking a fierce debate in the state capitol over how to teach the next generation to read.
The Literacy Landscape: A Decade of Decline
The statistics surrounding Minnesota’s literacy crisis are stark. According to data from Compass Education, third-grade reading proficiency rates have plummeted from nearly 56% in 2013 to approximately 46% today. This decline has alarmed educators, parents, and policymakers alike, forcing a long-overdue reckoning with the state’s pedagogical approach.
For years, the status quo was governed by the "Read Well by Third Grade" initiative. While well-intentioned, the policy focused heavily on a singular benchmark at the end of third grade, rather than providing the consistent, foundational support necessary throughout a child’s early developmental years. Critics, including Edelson, argued that the policy failed to address the root causes of reading difficulties—namely, the lack of evidence-based, structured literacy instruction.
The urgency of the situation reached a boiling point in 2018, when Edelson was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives. She began questioning the efficacy of the existing framework, advocating for a shift toward a comprehensive, multi-year literacy strategy. However, meaningful change remained elusive until the political landscape shifted following the 2022 midterms, when Democrats gained full control of the state government, clearing a path for aggressive education reform.
The Chronology of the READ Act
The journey of the READ Act from a legislative concept to a cornerstone of Minnesota education policy has been defined by iterative development and constant feedback loops.
Phase One: The 2023 Foundation
After the 2022 election, Edelson partnered with Sen. Erin Maye Quade, DFL-Apple Valley, to craft a robust piece of legislation. During the drafting process, the authors encountered significant hurdles beyond simple curriculum design. Teachers voiced concerns regarding the quality and cultural representation within existing materials. Reports emerged that some classroom texts featured inaccurate or stereotypical depictions of African American and Native American children, prompting the authors to prioritize diversity and inclusion alongside technical literacy standards.
In 2023, Governor Tim Walz signed the original READ Act into law. The legislation was a significant departure from previous policies, mandating a transition to evidence-based literacy instruction and providing $70 million in funding to support teacher training in structured literacy methods—an approach that emphasizes phonics and the mechanics of language.
Phase Two: READ Act 2.0
The work did not stop at the signature. Recognizing that the implementation phase would reveal practical gaps, Edelson and Maye Quade maintained an open dialogue with educators across the state. This feedback resulted in the introduction of an updated version in 2024, colloquially known as "READ Act 2.0." This iteration focused on bolstering funding for teacher professional development, ensuring that the instructors responsible for implementing the science-based programming were adequately equipped to do so.
Supporting Data and Evidence-Based Pedagogy
The shift toward structured literacy is rooted in the "science of reading"—an interdisciplinary body of research that explains how the brain learns to read. Unlike older "whole language" approaches that often relied on context clues and guessing, structured literacy emphasizes phonics, phonemic awareness, and the systematic decoding of words.
Julie Cronin, a second-grade teacher in the Robbinsdale school district, has seen the transition firsthand. She points to specific, evidence-based programs like "Bridge to Read" and "LETRS" as game-changers. “They get it. They get the rules,” Cronin said, describing how students are now learning to break words apart, combine letters, and systematically sound out unfamiliar terms.
State Senator Steve Cwodzinski, a DFLer from Eden Prairie and chair of the Senate Education Policy Committee, views the current progress with cautious optimism. After visiting several grade schools, he noted that the results are increasingly visible in the classroom. “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, so it’s working,” Cwodzinski observed.
Official Responses and Partisan Divergence
Despite the optimism expressed by proponents of the READ Act, the path forward is not without contention. As is often the case at the Minnesota Capitol, education policy has become a flashpoint for partisan disagreement.
The Republican Alternative
A group of Republican lawmakers, including Sens. Michael Holmstrom, Jordan Rasmusson, and Julia Coleman, have challenged the current trajectory by introducing the "READ Act Interventions bill." This proposal seeks to add a layer of accountability that critics argue is missing from the current law.
The proposal mandates that public schools develop individualized learning plans for students who fall below grade-level proficiency. Most controversially, the bill would require schools to hold struggling students back a grade if it is determined to be in their "best interest."
Senator Holmstrom argues that the current system does a disservice to students by allowing them to advance when they have not mastered fundamental reading skills. “They’re not going to keep up if we let them,” Holmstrom said. He contends that he has spoken with numerous teachers who believe that, in the past, students should have been held back but were promoted nonetheless, setting them up for academic failure as the curriculum becomes more complex.
The Case Against Retention
The proposal for mandatory grade 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 the research on grade retention suggests the practice can be counterproductive.
“That would be harmful for students, you know, like, mentally and socially,” Mohen-VonAhnen said, citing concerns that holding children back often leads to disengagement and diminished self-esteem rather than improved academic outcomes.
Edelson shares this perspective, drawing again from her personal history. Her opposition to the retention clause is rooted in her own childhood experience of being held back in third grade—an event she says convinced her that retention is not an effective, nor a humane, solution for learning disabilities. By design, the original READ Act avoided retention mandates, opting instead for intensive, ongoing intervention and teacher support.
Implications for the Future of Minnesota Education
The ongoing debate over literacy policy in Minnesota highlights a fundamental disagreement over the role of state government in local education. Supporters of the READ Act believe the state’s duty is to provide teachers with the tools, training, and evidence-based curriculum necessary to catch struggling students before they fall behind. Opponents, meanwhile, argue that without firm, punitive benchmarks like grade retention, the system lacks the necessary urgency to ensure no child is left behind.
As the legislature navigates a closely divided chamber, the prospect of the READ Act Interventions bill passing appears slim. However, the conversation is far from over. The tension between supporting students through resources versus holding them back through policy reflects a broader, national struggle to define what "accountability" looks like in the classroom.
Ultimately, the goal remains the same: ensuring that every Minnesota student, regardless of their starting point or learning style, gains the foundational skills required to read, learn, and succeed. Whether through the structured phonics-based approach of the READ Act or the proposed interventions of the opposition, the stakes remain high. For teachers like Cronin and policymakers like Edelson, the mission is simple: keep the focus on the science, the students, and the promise that every child deserves the chance to turn the page.
