Beth Ann Rosica: $23K per student, but only one in three can read at grade level

Despite spending more than $23,000 per student annually, only a third of Pennsylvania fourth graders can read at grade level. Lawmakers are scrambling to fix it — but are they missing a key solution?

As a result of what can only be called a crisis, House and Senate members on both sides of the aisle sponsored bills this year in an attempt to address the problem. The pending legislation is modeled after other state literacy laws where vast increases were seen; however, Pennsylvania excluded one potentially key component — third grade retention for students not reading proficiently.

In states where retention laws have worked, it was just one part of a comprehensive, evidence-based reading strategy — not a standalone fix.

According to the 2024 Nation’s Report Card, Pennsylvania ranks 17th out of 50 states for fourth grade reading proficiency, despite higher than average funding levels. The Commonwealth Foundation reports Pennsylvania school districts spent over $23,000 per student in the 2023-2024 school year, “ranking seventh in the nation compared to the national average of $18,461.”

Of the states scoring higher than Pennsylvania and the national average, several have enacted laws focused on improving reading proficiency. 

One debatable component is the concept of retaining third grade students who are not proficient readers. Retention is the current term for what was previously known as “holding back” a student and repeating the third grade.

Fourth grade students in Indiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Ohio all scored higher than Pennsylvania on the 2024 reading proficiency assessments, and each state has a law requiring retention at third grade if the student is not a proficient reader.

Three other states scoring higher than Pennsylvania, including New Jersey, Colorado, and Connecticut, have laws that allow but do not require retention.

However, retention policies do not automatically equate with higher than average reading proficiency, as there are states with retention laws that are performing worse than the national average. For example, Michigan, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Michigan rank at the bottom (45, 46, and 47 out of 50) in fourth grade reading proficiency and have or had retention laws. Michigan enacted a retention law in 2016, and later repealed it in 2023 due to concerns about the disproportionate impact on black and economically disadvantaged students.

These concerns are often cited as reasons not to include retention in the law. Yet, it is hard to measure its impact because the states with a retention law and higher outcomes than the national average do not use retention alone as a strategy.

For example, Mississippi and Florida have comprehensive laws and plans that include retention as one component of an expansive system.

Dubbed the “Mississippi Miracle,” the southern state made dramatic gains in reading proficiency since 2013, moving from 49th in the country to 9th. Their law and subsequent plan requires evidence-based reading instruction, literacy coaches, and support for teachers in low performing schools, universal screening starting in kindergarten, intensive interventions and individualized reading plans for deficient students, teacher training in effective literacy practices, and increased teacher certification requirements.

Retention is only one part of the strategy, and it is possible the threat of retention in combination with the significant investment in teacher training and individualized instruction for students is the reason for the “miracle” — which is not really a miracle at all. Miracles cannot be replicated, but the science of reading, if implemented correctly, can be duplicated.

As ExcelinEd, an education nonprofit, notes, retention dropped because early interventions worked — just as the law intended.

The Mississippi law also requires a home reading plan for retained students, thereby intentionally involving parents and caregivers. Additionally, when the law went into effect, school districts were required to notify parents of the changes and in particular of the possibility of retention. 

Retention was not viewed as punitive or racist, but rather a necessary tool to ensure the student left elementary school proficient in reading. Third grade is a pivotal year for reading proficiency and if students are not on grade level at that time, they will fall further behind and be at risk for never learning to read.

Those who claim the retention policy is unfair don’t seem to understand the benefits. Both Mississippi and Florida’s laws include a “good cause exemption” for some English learners and students with disabilities.

Pennsylvania legislators acknowledge the reading crisis in the Commonwealth and the Senate and the House proposed legislation this year to address the issue.

Senate Bill 700 passed the Education Committee last month with bipartisan support. The bill contains similar components as the Mississippi and Florida laws, including the identification of evidence-based reading instruction curriculum, early reading screenings, reading intervention plans, professional development for teachers, and parental notification.

Notably absent from both the bills is the third grade retention component.

However, every school district in the Commonwealth has the ability to retain third graders if they are not reading proficiently. Most districts have Policy 215: Promotion and Retention that grants the superintendent the authority to develop guidelines “which assure that every effort will be made to remediate the student’s difficulties before the student is retained.”

Regardless of the state legislation, school districts could implement the third grade retention policy locally to maximize the potential of literacy success for every child. Given our current crisis and the consequences, superintendents and legislators should be willing to try every intervention that has been proven effective — including retention.

Beth Ann Rosica resides in West Chester, has a Ph.D. in Education, and has dedicated her career to advocating on behalf of at-risk children and families. She covers education issues for Broad + Liberty. Contact her at barosica@broadandliberty.com.