John Thompson, writing from Oklahoma, reviews the research on the “Mississippi Miracle,” the strategies that boosted fourth-grade test scores? Those strategies are now being turned into law in states across the country. John takes another look.

He writes:

When the so-called “Mississippi Miracle” and the “Science of Reading,” became the drivers of the Oklahoma Strong Readers Act, I pointed out the large body of research-based evidence that its advocates ignored. Yes, there was evidence that the so-called “Marathon” could raise 4th grade test scores, at least in the short-term, but there was little or no evidence that it would do more good than harm. Negative results were even more likely in Oklahoma where our rightwing politics and our minimal amount of funding would drive the experiment.

I also asked experts and journalists about policies that common sense would say violate the norms of social science research. For instance, NAEP tests have been designed to minimize the use of test prep to jack up scores.  And, yes, I was told that there are people looking into that issue.

Being a former academic historian, I would read the way that reformers like Adam Tyner and Rachel Canter track NAEP scores. However, I was dismayed by their interpretations of those patterns. After all, whether laws were passed in 2002 or 2013, those mandates didn’t take effect immediately. If we want to learn what policies worked in what places, we need to identify what was actually happening in schools before we can figure out whether those approaches worked.

And that leads me to “NEPC Review: Inside the Mississippi Marathon” by, Gregory Camilli, Professor Emeritus from Rutgers University. Camilli was extremely precise and diplomatic, when reviewing the Progressive Policy Institute’s, “Inside the Mississippi Marathon,” written by Rachel Canter. He explained that it presents an “insider account of how the K–3 education system in Mississippi evolved over roughly two decades.” But, he “focuses on just a slice of the report: its description of the state’s performance in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and, to a lesser degree, the policy implementation.”

Camilli reports that Mississippi’s Literacy-Based Promotion Act (LBPA) was passed in 2013, but “full implementation of the various pillars of the LBPA arguably took place in 2017-2019.”

Then he notes that “the PPI report also presents no research literature on [the] effectiveness of the LBPA,” and “it is not presented or intended as a research study.”

The LBPA prioritized the lowest-performing schools. By 2015-16, full literacy support was given to 18% of approximately 700 elementary schools. 

These “designated schools,” were assigned a literacy coach (hired, trained, and monitored by the state)” who modeled and observed instruction. They also received a “reading curriculum that the state had reviewed and approved as consistent with the ‘science of reading.’” 

It was estimated that the time available for administrative duty and travel, and coaching, “may equate to approximately 15-35 minutes per week per teacher.”

So, how could Mississippi’s full LBPA gains provide more than a small contribution to NAEP test score increases? 

Camilli concludes LBPA “most likely had modest impact on NAEP scores due to the relatively small number of students in designated schools and the even smaller number selected for the NAEP sample.”

Conversely, low-performing students in 82% schools were subject to some assessments, and retention, but not the comprehensive supports that were said to be crucial for the Miracle. Camilli explains, “In non-designated schools, LBPA exposure consisted of a modest state-wide bundle of supports including retention screening.”

So, was it the threat of retention that played the largest role in increasing test scores? Or, was it test-prep that improved scores? If so, is there any reason to believe those scores meant reading levels improved? After all, even though Camilli focused on the 4th grade NAEP scores that “Inside the Mississippi Marathon” emphasized, he noted Mississippi’s failure to improve 8th grade NAEP reading scores. 

That leads to the question as to whether reading comprehension improved.   

Camilli wrote that threat of retention was a prevalent incentive: 

It could be argued that the threat of retention was the primary treatment for the majority of Mississippi students, because students in non-designated schools received only distal instructional support in the form of teacher training. This threat itself may have caused principals, teachers and students to devote more instructional time and effort to literacy. 

(Distal instructional support means interventions, guidance, or systemic resources delivered remotely, indirectly, or at an organizational level rather than through immediate, face-to-face coaching.)

And, “This threat (of retention) itself may have caused principals, teachers and students to devote more instructional time and effort to literacy.”

Moreover, “the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) suggests that in 2015, the MDE revised its state assessment to align more closely with the NAEP assessment.”

Camilli noted the “vast literature on the outcomes and efficacy of test preparation, which is a notoriously controversial topic,” and the way that “it may lead to increases in test scores without enlarging students’ capabilities.”

And that leads to the question as to what was the effect of Mississippi’s use of NAEP materials in order increase its State Proficiency scores. When defending their failure to increase 8thgrade NAEP reading scores, advocates for the Miracle argue that their scores decreased less than other states. But, it’s possible (or likely) that those Mississippi scores have only declined by 2 points since NCLB became law in 2002 due, in part, to the use of NAEP materials.

On the other hand, from 2019 to 2024, the dubious Mississippi State 8th grade Reading Proficiency rates increased by 6 points, while its NAEP Proficiency scores dropped by 2 points, increasing its State/NAEP Proficiency Gap to 19 points. And the 4th grade gap reached 25 points!   

Those gaps again call into the question about whether Mississippi’s data-driven accountability and mass retentions actually improved reading, as opposed to producing short-lived surges in 4th grade test scores. And it further calls into question Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeve’s plan to ramp up those policies up until 8th grade. And I would further ask why Oklahoma should commit to Mississippi’s model, before they can present solid evidence that it has worked.

New reporting and scholarly research, like Dr. Camilli’s, indicate that the so-called “Miracle” is doing even more harm than anticipated. To defend public education, and the joy of reading, we need to better explain to its advocates why the benefits that once seemed possible, and the predictable harms of the “Marathon,” are imposing even greater threats on school cultures. We must also increase our conversations with Democrats and adult Republicans, who have questions about mass retentions of students.


In my experience with education advocates, which I suspect is similiar to education supporters in many Red states, they knew that legislation based on Mississippi’s experiment was bound to become law. So, they focused (usually unsuccessfully) on providing more social supports, like high-dosage tutoring, and better funding in order to provide human contacts, where students would be seen as persons, not test scores.   
But, now we must focus on the damage that we now know is being inflicted on K-12 education in Mississippi, and push back against those policies in our states.