Will Minnesota train the next batch of literacy educators adequately?

District officials should choose wisely when selecting the professional development curriculum their district will require for literacy educators.

As I wrote yesterday, Minnesota’s 2023 READ Act aims to reform and update the state’s early literacy education processes. One key reform component is that of mandatory evidence-based literacy instruction training for educators, who too often have received inaccurate or insufficient training on the science of literacy. Research shows that a good teacher matters more to student achievement than any other aspect of a schooling experience.

The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) approved a few literacy instruction training programs for educators. Most of Minnesota’s 33,386 Phase 1 Educators (mainly elementary classroom educators) have already completed their training before the July 1 2026 deadline, with 64 percent completely finished and 25 percent in progress. As I have written, one of the programs endorsed by MDE (and the program which claims to have educated the majority of Phase 1 Educators) is also the program with the least research backing.

The sweep of literacy instruction training is now moving to Phase 2, with all Phase 2 educators required to complete their professional development by July 1, 2027. There are far fewer educators classified as Phase 2. The 3,071 Phase 2 educators are mainly grade 4-12 educators who provide reading instruction, educators who work in struggling populations, middle and high school curriculum directors and literacy material selectors. As of June 15, 2025, 26 percent had completed their training and 9 percent were in progress. There is no public information available that could indicate what programs have been chosen for Phase 2 educators.

What about the teacher training programs given to Phase 2 educators?

There are four programs approved by MDE for Phase 2 educators, which vary in trustworthiness: CAREIALL Secondary, Neuhause Structured Literacy Modules, OL&LA Secondary, and STRIVE Science of Reading Grades 4-12.

CAREIALL Secondary is a product of the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement at the University of Minnesota, created in response to the READ Act. While this brand-new program does not have any peer reviewed research or reviews by reputable organizations, it was created by a robust team of professional literacy researchers at the U. Unlike CAREI’s program for elementary teachers, the program is not accredited by the International Dyslexia Association (IDA). District leaders should be aware that this program does not yet have a rigorous research backing. Happily, the program has been approved by the State of Michigan for literacy instruction.

Neuhaus Structured Literacy Modules, originating from the Neuhaus nonprofit, has a strong profile. The organization is recognized by the International Dyslexia Association (IDA), and is accredited by the International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council (IMSLEC). The Modules are in alignment with IDA’s Knowledge and Practice Standards. While the Modules themselves have not undergone a rigorous peer-review study, Neuhaus’ strong institutional backing has led states like Rhode Island to recommend the program.

OL&LA Secondary, created by the educational consulting firm Consortium on Reaching Excellence in Education (CORE), is another new (2023) program. Similarly to CAREI, OL&LA’s program for K-6 teachers is accredited by the IDA, but not the Secondary program that will be used for Minnesota’s Phase 2 educators. No peer-reviewed studies have validated OL&LA Secondary’s efficacy.

Finally, STRIVE Science of Reading Grades 4-12 originates from consulting firm Strive TLC. The program appears to have no outside accreditations and has not undergone any peer reviewed studies. The organization was founded by Montana Office of Public Instruction official Debbie Hunsaker, who directed Montana literacy programs in her role as Division Administrator for Educational Opportunity and Equity. The strongest indication of STRIVE Science of Reading’s quality is the selection by MDE as an approved curriculum for literacy instruction.

Of course, a district’s early literacy reform does not rise or fall on the strength of their training program. Efficacy depends on each school district’s ability to successfully implement long-term structural reform and ongoing teacher coaching. Districts aren’t going it alone: the READ Act mandated the creation of a network of literacy coaches and district-level support. The new Regional Literacy Network (RLN), according to the recent READ Act report, is “composed of nine literacy leads and 20 literacy coaches who are located across each of the 9 Minnesota service cooperatives.” Plus, each school district is required to submit a Local Literacy Plan to the state and designate one person as a District/Charter Literacy Lead. (Well-regarded education policy organization Excel In Ed has raised a red flag of warning about the potential inadequacies of Minnesota’s teacher coaching program, as literacy coaches are assigned to each district, not each elementary school.)

The four programs that MDE has approved for professional development have very different qualifications when it comes to institutional backing, accreditation strength, and peer-reviewed research history. It’s interesting that MDE chose to put forward several relatively new programs, especially when contrasted with other literacy-reform states like Mississippi (which has partnered with AIM Pathways and Lexia). If these professional development programs gain additional markers of academic strength in the future, then districts will be validated in their choice to trust MDE’s guidance. But districts should always be aware that programs are not created equally, and they must use wisdom for this choice that can shape their literacy programs for the next several years.