Regarding your article about the science of reading and the improvement in reading scores for children in the states of Mississippi and Louisiana compared to the disappointing outcomes for students in the state of Minnesota, I think one answer to the discrepancy lies in your own data, and was also supported by my own experience. The higher percentage of students from non-English speaking families in Minnesota, about 3X that of Mississippi in Louisiana, is one pretty big factor. Having provided those students with the best science of reading methods plus my own carefully trained and monitored tutoring, plus regular testing of student progress, they still go home to families* speaking a different language than what we are teaching them in school. There simply is not enough practice outside of school to support the 20 minutes per day of tutoring that the students are getting. The schools know this, and it is one of the facts of life for immigrants to any country where the children are learning a whole new language, other than what they speak at home. Another scientific fact is that it can take a student up to seven years—even 10 or so years, to become as fluent and proficient in their second language and ready for totally equal learning opportunities as their native speaking classmates. Thanks to the talents and ingenuity of the students themselves, they manage remarkably well, once they get past the gateway to reading proficiency.

If Minnesota could ramp up classroom teaching, plus daily one-on-one tutoring of some students by teachers and tutors able to demonstrate their proficiency using the science of reading, the results would start to turn around. Key, too, is K-1 grade identification of students needs so they can be reading at grade level before the end of third grade.

* I worked with students at the low end of the socio-economic spectrum, though that does not play as big a role in your example as other factors.