Inspired by Mississippi, Missouri lawmakers want to hold back third graders who can’t read

State Representative Kem Smith, a Democrat from Florissant, began reconsidering her views on automatic third-grade retention during Thanksgiving. While her family gathered in New Hebron, Mississippi, she opted for roasted cauliflower as a vegan, while others enjoyed turkey and chicken spaghetti. She struck up a conversation with a cousin who teaches in Mississippi, where third graders who struggle with reading are retained. The cousin noted a positive aspect of the retention policy: it signals to families that it’s time to provide support if a child is having literacy difficulties.

“That family component is huge,” Smith asserts, drawing from her experience as a teacher in St. Louis for over 25 years and as a mother of five (and grandmother of six). On March 12, she joined nearly all of her Democratic colleagues in the Missouri House of Representatives in supporting the Republican supermajority’s literacy bill, which would implement automatic third-grade retention in Missouri based on a statewide diagnostic test, with certain exceptions.

This is part of a larger initiative in Jefferson City to adopt legislation inspired by the “Mississippi Miracle,” a term used to describe the impressive literacy advancements made by students in that state. In 2013, Mississippi fourth graders ranked 49th in the nation in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test, but by 2024, they had climbed to 9th place. This transformation is even more remarkable considering that Mississippi has a high number of low-income students, and when adjusting for socioeconomic factors, Mississippi excelled in both reading and math. This progress occurred over a decade, prompting some to refer to it as the “Mississippi Marathon.”

Critics have argued that past education “miracles” were misleading, suggesting that third-grade retention creates a “selection bias,” where the removal of the lowest-performing students from test scores results in a more favorable cohort.

However, this selection-bias theory does not hold water. First, Mississippi began making significant reading improvements well before any students affected by retention participated in the NAEP test. Second, retained students are still required to take the test the following year after their retention, and while their cognitive development may be enhanced, neither the number of retained students nor the average age of fourth graders in Mississippi has significantly increased. Third, if retention alone were the secret to Mississippi’s success, we wouldn’t expect to see improvements across all student ability levels, which is exactly what is observed. Lastly, Louisiana has adopted many of Mississippi’s policies and has experienced its own substantial gains.

So, if third-grade retention wasn’t merely a way to manipulate statistics, what role did it play in Mississippi’s success?

According to Rachel Canter, the former head of the nonprofit Mississippi First, which played a significant role in the transformation, retention is just one aspect of a larger strategy. In her recent “insider” account published by the Progressive Policy Institute, she highlights that lawmakers took a comprehensive approach to address the educational challenges, enhancing Mississippi’s educational system in four key areas: standards, testing and accountability; consequences for poor outcomes; evidence-based teaching methodologies; and support for implementation. (“Simply enacting good policies,” she notes, “is insufficient. Effective implementation is crucial for making a difference.”)

One tangible change was raising expectations and assigning letter grades A–F to schools based on their performance. This is the aspect that Jefferson City appears most eager to replicate in the current session. Governor Mike Kehoe even issued an executive order seemingly intended to encourage the legislature toward passing its own version. (While the House has already approved it, the full Missouri Senate had not yet voted on it at press time.)

Missouri has already begun to take steps toward implementing evidence-based literacy instruction. Senate Bill 681, passed in 2022, not only provided funding for teacher training in phonics and reading science through the LETRS program, but also mandated that public schools report on regular internal reading assessments and develop “intensive” catch-up plans for students who fall behind.

Some educators argue that these reforms require more time to take effect before retention complicates the situation. Christina Sneed, the curriculum and instruction leader in the School District of University City, testified in the Senate on April 14 that she and her colleagues were already observing “significant gains in student confidence, engagement, and parental involvement.” She cautioned that retention would mean forcing students to repeat the same instructional content that was ineffective initially. While retention may not be the primary objective of the current literacy bill, she noted, “we know it will be the outcome.”

A decade ago, there was considerable concern in Mississippi, Canter recalls, with “doomsday predictions of a nearly 30 percent retention rate.” Retention was “extremely controversial” and “the most uncomfortable policy plank.” However, the highest rate recorded was 9.6 percent in the 2018–2019 school year, which has since decreased to 6 percent. “One clear lesson,” Canter concludes, “is that the threat of consequences can be just as impactful as the consequences themselves.”

In this context, the literacy bill under consideration in Missouri appears to be aimed at motivating adults more than children. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Cathy Joy Loy (R-Carthage), remarked at one hearing: “This bill is not about punishment. It’s about prevention. … It’s about equipping children with the tools they need before they fall behind.”

Rep. Smith’s initial concerns about the bill were rooted in the belief that Missouri was establishing punitive measures without adequate preventative strategies, such as enhancing pre-K education or investing in literacy coaches. Nevertheless, she recognized that, as a member of the minority party, her influence was limited to marginal improvements. Consequently, she proposed an amendment that was accepted, requiring parents to be notified if their child demonstrates a reading deficiency by the end of second grade, emphasizing the need for immediate action, and if they fail to do so, the school will intervene.

“Do I believe [the bill is] going to be flawless?” Smith asks. “Absolutely not. But if we’re going to pursue this, let’s involve families in the process.”