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 stakes of Minnesota’s literacy crisis are deeply personal. Growing up, Edelson navigated the educational system with undiagnosed dyslexia, a hurdle that turned the simple act of reading into a daily struggle.
"I didn’t really read well until probably late middle school," Edelson recalled. "It was really challenging."
Edelson’s childhood experience is not an anomaly; it is a reflection of a systemic struggle that has gripped Minnesota for over a decade. Since 2013, literacy proficiency rates for the state’s third graders have plummeted from nearly 56% to approximately 46%, according to data from Compass Education. This downward trend has spurred a legislative overhaul, resulting in the "READ Act"—a ambitious, multi-million dollar effort to shift the state toward evidence-based literacy instruction. However, as the law moves into its second phase, it has become the focal point of a contentious debate over how best to support struggling learners.
A Chronology of Reform: From "Read Well" to "READ Act 2.0"
The journey toward the READ Act began in earnest in 2018, when Edelson was first elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives. As she began examining education policy, she found the existing "Read Well by Third Grade" law insufficient. She argued that the policy focused too narrowly on a single milestone—third-grade proficiency—rather than fostering a cohesive, cumulative literacy development strategy that spanned a student’s entire academic career.
The political landscape shifted dramatically following the 2022 midterms, when the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) party gained full control of the state government. This shift provided the necessary momentum for Edelson to partner with Sen. Erin Maye Quade, DFL-Apple Valley, to author the READ Act.
During the drafting process, the conversation expanded beyond just pedagogy. Educators voiced concerns regarding the cultural competency of existing curricula, noting that instructional materials often contained inaccurate or stereotypical depictions of African American and Native American children. Addressing these gaps became a secondary, yet vital, objective of the legislative effort.
In 2023, Governor Tim Walz signed the inaugural READ Act into law, backed by $70 million in appropriations to help schools transition to evidence-based programs. However, the work did not stop there. Following feedback from teachers and school administrators, Edelson and Maye Quade returned to the Capitol in 2024 to introduce an updated version, colloquially known as "READ Act 2.0." This iteration refined the initial goals, focusing heavily on bolstering funding for intensive teacher training and ensuring the science of reading—specifically phonics-based instruction—was firmly rooted in every classroom.
The Science of Reading: Supporting Data and Evidence
At the heart of the READ Act is a movement toward "structured literacy." This pedagogical approach emphasizes the explicit, systematic teaching of phonics—the relationship between letters and sounds.
Julie Cronin, a second-grade teacher in the Robbinsdale school district, has seen the impact firsthand. She points to programs like Bridge to Read and LETRS as game-changers in her classroom. These tools provide teachers with a structured roadmap to teach word study, guiding students on how to break apart complex words and decode unfamiliar terms.
"They get it. They get the rules," Cronin said, describing the difference in student comprehension.
The empirical backing for this shift is robust. Supporters of the READ Act argue that the previous "balanced literacy" approaches, which often encouraged students to guess words based on context or pictures, failed a significant portion of the student population—particularly those with learning disabilities like dyslexia. By codifying science-based programming, the state aims to replace guesswork with decoding mastery.
Sen. Steve Cwodzinski, DFL-Eden Prairie and chair of the Senate Education Policy Committee, believes the results are already visible. Through his frequent classroom visits, Cwodzinski has observed a tangible shift in student capabilities. "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," he remarked. "It’s working."
The Crossroads: Republican Pushback and the Retention Debate
Despite the positive reception from many in the education sector, the READ Act has not escaped partisan friction. A group of Republican lawmakers, including Sens. Michael Holmstrom, Jordan Rasmusson, and Julia Coleman, has introduced a counter-proposal known as the "READ Act Interventions bill."
The core of the GOP proposal lies in accountability and, more controversially, grade retention. The bill would require public schools to establish individualized learning plans for any student who fails to meet grade-level reading standards. Most significantly, it would mandate that schools hold students back a grade if it is determined to be in their "best interest."
Sen. Holmstrom argues that the current system does a disservice to children by allowing them to advance without fundamental skills. He contends that as students move into higher grades, the curriculum becomes increasingly dense, and students who have not mastered basic reading are destined to fall further behind. "They’re not going to keep up if we let them," Holmstrom said, noting that many teachers have expressed frustration that they currently lack the authority to retain students who are clearly struggling.
Implications: The Human and Social Cost
The debate over retention versus progression is not merely academic; it strikes at the core of child development philosophy.
Opponents of the Republican proposal, including Edelson, argue that grade retention is an ineffective and often harmful intervention. Edelson’s own experience being held back in third grade remains a formative, negative memory that drove her to specifically exclude retention mandates from the original READ Act.
"That would be harmful for students, both mentally and socially," said Mackenzie Mohen-VonAhnen, a teacher at Centennial Elementary in Richfield. Many educators agree, citing research that suggests students who are held back are at a higher risk of dropping out later in their academic careers and often suffer from diminished self-esteem.
The disagreement highlights a fundamental divide in the Minnesota Capitol: should the state mandate strict consequences for academic failure to force progress, or should it invest in systemic, supportive training that allows students to grow at their own pace?
Looking Ahead: The Future of Literacy in Minnesota
As the Minnesota Legislature remains narrowly divided, the future of the READ Act Interventions bill appears uncertain. Even some of its proponents acknowledge that the proposal is unlikely to pass in the current session.
However, the conversation has succeeded in keeping literacy at the forefront of the state’s political agenda. The implementation of the READ Act is a multi-year process, and the state continues to grapple with how to best support the diversity of learners within its borders.
For teachers like Cronin, the focus remains on the daily work of helping children unlock the code of language. For lawmakers like Edelson, the work is about ensuring that no child has to struggle as long as she did to achieve fluency.
Whether through the refinement of teacher preparation programs—which critics argue must change alongside the act—or through continued investment in evidence-based curricula, Minnesota is in the midst of an educational experiment. The success of this experiment will ultimately be measured not by legislative wins or partisan debates, but by the literacy rates of the next generation of Minnesotans. As the state moves forward, the question remains: can the legislature find a middle ground that balances the need for rigorous standards with the necessity of compassionate, student-centered support?
The books are open, and the chapter on Minnesota literacy is still being written.
