At least 29 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation over the past decade aimed at improving early reading instruction and student outcomes. But have these laws actually moved the needle on kids鈥� achievement?
A new study from researchers at Michigan State University examines the question鈥攁nd finds that the outcomes are mixed.
In general, these policies are linked to improvements on states鈥� year-end standardized tests. But only states with comprehensive policies鈥攍egislation that provided support, training, and funding for instructional change, and implemented 3rd grade retention policies鈥攁lso saw gains on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the test known as the 鈥淣ation鈥檚 Report Card.鈥�
Those states also made bigger jumps on standardized tests scores than their counterparts with less comprehensive policies.
The findings are especially relevant now, as the 鈥渟cience of reading鈥� movement has gained steam in state legislatures. In the past two years alone, 18 states passed new laws requiring schools to use evidence-based instructional approaches and materials, provide new training for teachers, or offer interventions for struggling students.
This research has implications for states that are passing new policies or reshaping existing ones, said Amy Cummings, a doctoral student in education policy at Michigan State University, and one of the authors of the paper.
鈥淗aving these comprehensive supports for teachers and students does appear to be really important,鈥� she said. 鈥淩etention is the thing that gets a lot of attention in the media, and a lot of previous research has hinged on the retention component of these policies. 鈥� But what we鈥檙e seeing is an effect over and above retention of including all these other supports.鈥�
Umut 脰zek, a senior economist at the RAND Corporation who studies education policy, said the paper is 鈥渋mportant work鈥� for understanding the effects of these laws on a broad scale.
鈥淯p until now, we鈥檝e had these individual studies looking at the effects of early literacy interventions, and in part these early grade retention policies in different states,鈥� said 脰zek, who was not involved with this research. 鈥淏ut this study provides a more comprehensive look at the national level.鈥�
The ingredients of a 鈥榗omprehensive鈥� policy
The , which was presented at the American Educational Research Association conference earlier this month, has not yet been peer reviewed.
To categorize early literacy policies as 鈥渃omprehensive鈥� or not, the researchers used criteria developed for a 2021 analysis by ExcelinEd, an advocacy group founded by Jeb Bush, Florida鈥檚 former governor. Comprehensive policies met all criteria, including training and coaching for teachers, funding, and lots of supports for struggling students. All comprehensive policies also included retention components. (See all of the criteria in Table 1 in the paper, .)
Then the researchers used the , which aggregates yearly data on state reading and math tests, to analyze the states鈥� performance on state tests from 2009 through 2018. They also examined NAEP results鈥攁 test that isn鈥檛 tied to consequences for students, teachers, or schools.
鈥淗igh-stakes test scores are often criticized because they might capture other things than student learning,鈥� like teaching to the test, said John Westall, a postdoctoral research fellow at Michigan State University, and one of the authors on the paper.
Because NAEP isn鈥檛 attached to retention or accountability standards in the same way, he said, 鈥渨e think it does a better job of measuring the actual skills of the students in the subject that鈥檚 being tested.鈥�
Overall, states with any kind of literacy policy saw gains in high-stakes reading tests in grades 3-5, with the biggest gains in 3rd grade. 69传媒 improved by 7 to 14 percent of the annual academic growth of a typical 3rd grader.
鈥淭hese states that have the retention requirement tend to have bigger test-score increases than states that don鈥檛 have retention requirements鈥攂ut not as big as states that have these comprehensive policies, which include retention, but also these other supports for teachers and students,鈥� Westall said.
They also found that these policies didn鈥檛 widen socioeconomic or racial achievement gaps on these tests, and suggestive evidence that the policies slightly reduce disparities.
States with comprehensive policies also saw modest, but significant, improvements on students鈥� NAEP scores鈥攚hile states with policies that weren鈥檛 comprehensive did not.
The comprehensive policies also seemed to lead to more sustained achievement effects on the state tests, Westall said. 69传媒 in these states continued to improve at above-average rates through 8th grade, while gains for students in states with less comprehensive policies faded out after 5th grade.
Why 鈥榖usiness as usual鈥� doesn鈥檛 work
Of course, early literacy legislation wasn鈥檛 the only policy change happening during the years that the researchers examined.
In the early 2010s, some states also began receiving funding through Race to the Top鈥攁 competitive federal grant program that offered funding for states that agreed to embrace certain policies, including the adoption of rigorous, common standards in English/language arts and math.
The researchers separately analyzed states that got these funds and those that didn鈥檛, and found that states with early literacy policies that had not received Race to the Top funding still saw significant improvements on high-stakes test scores. These effects were similar in size to states that had both early literacy policies and received Race to the Top money.
Overall, the study鈥檚 findings are consistent with previous research on 3rd grade retention policies that shows holding students back is most effective when it鈥檚 coupled with additional support, 脰zek said.
鈥淭he main objective of these retention policies is to give these kids extra time to catch up. But whether they can catch up or not depends on how well you use that time, that additional year,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f it鈥檚 business as usual, it鈥檚 less likely that these kids will benefit from these policies.鈥�
