MN teacher prep programs better aligned to science of reading but full picture more complicated

A new analysis by the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) gave 93 percent of 15 elementary teacher preparation programs in Minnesota an “A” or “A+” for adequately covering the five core components of scientifically based reading instruction. This is a dramatic improvement from 2023, when only 14 percent met that bar. But a look at the state’s own data suggests there is still significant ground to cover to ensure teachers are properly trained in evidence-based reading strategies to then instruct students.

Minnesota overhauled its approach to reading instruction in 2023 through the READ Act, which requires teacher preparation programs to instruct teacher candidates in evidence-based reading instruction. The law also directed the Professional Educator Licensing and Standards Board (PELSB) to audit whether approved programs were actually delivering on that mandate. That three-year cycle audit, released in January 2025 and covering activity from January 2023 through June 2025, gives us a little more complicated story than NCTQ’s analysis.

What NCTQ found

To complete its analysis, NCTQ convened reading experts (researchers, teacher educators, and experienced elementary educators) to review textbooks and other materials used by teacher preparation programs in their required reading coursework, looking for evidence of alignment with scientifically based reading instruction. The five components of such instruction include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension and have been identified by a growing body of research as the most effective foundation for teaching students to read.

Southwest Minnesota State University earned the top designation (“A+”) for exceeding NCTQ’s threshold across all five components without teaching any reading strategies contrary to the science of reading. Thirteen other programs also earned an A+ or A, including Concordia University St. Paul, Minnesota State University-Moorhead, St. Cloud State University, University of Minnesota-Duluth, University of Minnesota-Morris, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, University of St. Thomas, Winona State University, Minnesota State University-Mankato, Metropolitan State University, College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University, and Bemidji State University.

Room to grow

Despite this important progress in the number of Minnesota teacher prep programs providing scientifically based reading instruction, not all preparation programs have fully eliminated disproven reading practices.

While no analyzed program was found to be directly teaching the three-cueing method — the READ Act defines evidence-based practices in a way that excludes three-cueing — several programs showed evidence of related approaches.

Balanced literacy models, running records, and reader’s workshop appeared in University of Minnesota-Crookston’s coursework. Leveled texts surfaced at the College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University and Minnesota State University-Mankato. Winona State University’s curriculum included leveled texts and assessments like the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Informal Reading Inventories (IRI), and Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) that rely on guessing over decoding. Bemidji State University has coursework using miscue analysis.

Eliminating these practices will not only benefit students and teachers but districts as well. As NCTQ notes, when teacher prep programs spend time on disproven methods, school districts absorb the cost of retraining teachers who arrive without the skills they need to teach reading.

PELSB’s audit

The NCTQ analysis covered 15 elementary teacher preparation programs. Minnesota has 39 approved elementary teacher preparation programs. Using the state’s audit data, as of January 2025, only 17 of those 39 had passed the reading audit by demonstrating full alignment to reading requirements. The state report also audited PELSB-approved early childhood, special education, and reading programs. Of 14 approved early childhood programs, only three had passed the reading audit. Of 10 approved reading licensure programs — the specialists used for intervention — only one had passed. Most (62 out of 77) special education programs passed.

Combined, 11 programs are currently on probationary approval with reading standards marked “not met.” Another 46 are on continuing approval with interim reports required to address reading deficiencies.

This isn’t a reason to discount the NCTQ findings, as the progress identified is real and important. Plus, NCTQ was analyzing the 15 elementary programs using a curriculum-content lens, whereas the audit compared the 39 elementary programs against a broader compliance framework. But it does mean the 93 percent figure from NCTQ is one view of the system, not the whole.

The stakes remain high

Approximately 18,168 more fourth-grade students in Minnesota would be skilled readers each year if they received effective reading instruction, according to NCTQ’s calculations. Using the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, an estimated 24,407 current fourth graders are still struggling with foundational reading skills. As measured by Minnesota’s spring 2025 reading assessment, less than half (46.1 percent) of fourth graders met grade-level proficiency, a figure that has declined since at least 2022.

Students “not reading at grade level by fourth grade are four times more likely to drop out of high school, increasing their risk of lower lifetime earnings, higher unemployment, and involvement with the criminal justice system,” cites NCTQ.

What policymakers should do

With the READ Act, Minnesota has solid infrastructure to build on. The three-year statewide audit that began in 2023 is exactly the kind of baseline-setting review that NCTQ recommends. Policymakers should ensure that work is completed, and that programs still flagged for deficiencies are held to clear timelines for compliance.

Policymakers could also consider expanding the list of named harmful practices to include other disproven approaches: balanced literacy models, leveled texts, miscue analysis. A program still teaching these methods shouldn’t pass its review. Policymakers should also make sure programs are preparing teacher candidates to teach English learners and struggling readers, gaps NCTQ found even in programs earning top marks.

With intentional follow-through of what is already on the books, and future policy reform consideration, Minnesota could finally get back on track for measurable and meaningful reading improvements.