“If only you believed in miracles.”
—Red Octopus, Jefferson Starship
Over a quarter century ago, “The Texas Miracle” was mentioned by presidential candidate George W. Bush as a model for educational reform. What was this Texas Miracle? It wasn’t a miracle in the same sense as an apparition of the Virgin Mary—last witnessed in 1531 in Mexico. Rather, it was observed that the Houston Independent School District had apparently experienced significant gains in student achievement simply by holding school administrators accountable for their students’ test performance. The Houston superintendent, Rod Paige, was later appointed by President Bush to be Secretary of Education. Sadly, the miracle turned out to be a hoax. Administrators were able to improve test scores by increasing the numbers of students who were categorized into special education so their scores would not be included in the overall average.https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n41.2000“>1 Such a strategy to increase average scores by omitting the lowest scores is called left truncation of the score distribution.https://doi.org/10.1093/jrssig/qmaf098“>2 Note how the same strategy would boost life expectancy by only polling the living.
Ten years later, the El Paso Miracle involved a similar strategy. Superintendent Lorenzo Garcia had 9th grade low scorers transferred, dismissed, retained, or allowed to skip ahead to their junior year to keep them from taking the state-mandated 10th grade achievement test. To raise graduation rates, students received full course credit for taking a two-hour weekend class. Garcia spoke about his desire to become state education commissioner. Then he was arrested.3 We note that in the biblical past, those chosen to bestow miracles were very special people and were often canonized4 for their efforts (e.g., Acts 19:11 tells us that God’s miracles came through the hands of Paul). We know of no one who has compared Rod Paige or Lorenzo Garcia to St. Paul.
We have little hope that using evidence to debunk such claims will eradicate the audience for a good miracle.
The idea of being able to summon a miracle to solve the age-old problem of poor and minority students scoring low on achievement tests has near universal appeal. Such miracles are, in Samuel Johnson’s delicious observation, “the triumph of hope over experience.” The same observation helps to explain the gush of enthusiasm in the public media immediately following reports of educational miracles. Over a century of experience in educational reform has taught us that unbelievable improvements in average student performance either (a) did not happen, or (b) were due to a strategy of limiting who was included in the assessment. Yet, because such smoke-and-mirrors miracles tend to be easier and cheaper than boosting student performance through smaller classes, better instruction, etc., we have little hope that using evidence to debunk such claims will eradicate the audience for a good miracle. The best we can hope for is a visible increase in skepticism and a demand for associated empirical evidence to support the claimed miracle. Experience has taught us that the smaller the reported effect of an intervention on the grand enterprise of education, the more likely it is to be true.
The Latest Miracle
The latest educational miracle is the “Mississippi Miracle”—the miraculous turnaround of a state that only recently consistently ranked near the bottom of all states in education. Mississippi now leads the country as the fastest improving school system.5 The most recent 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results reported that Mississippi now ranks in a tie for 7th among all states in 4th grade reading, whereas in 2015, only three states scored lower than Mississippi. The rankings, when statistically adjusted, are even more impressive.
Once an educational laughingstock … after adjusting for demographics such as poverty and race, Mississippi ranks number one …6
Indeed, how can a state that has long been plagued by being in either first place in undesirable rankings (poverty, obesity, infant mortality rates, corporal punishment) or last place in desirable ones (education test scores, median household income, teacher salaries) now be lauded as a role model for other states to follow in the education of their children?
When adjusting for poverty, Mississippi has moved to the top of all states not only in 4th grade reading but also math.7 Even kids who are not economically disadvantaged have improved.8 But success is not limited to the wealthy or White. The question is who hasn’t improved? Hispanic students in Mississippi now outperform Hispanic students in all other states. Black students in Mississippi rank third among Black students in all states. And, even more surprising, the improvements in NAEP scores have occurred for students at every percentile ranging from the lowest performers to the very highest. This is unusual as educational interventions typically improve performance for either the low performers but not so much for the high performers, or for the high performers but not the lowest. In fact, Mississippi was the only state to improve 4th grade NAEP reading scores for the bottom 10 percent of students from 2013–2024.9 No typical aptitude by treatment interactions here where one group of learners improves more than others. This is simply amazing considering that the intervention was designed to benefit struggling readers. Again, such large, universal effects raise red flags as smaller ones are the norm in education.
Is the Mississippi Miracle finally the educational messiah for which many have been waiting that will reverse the curse of past educational miracles? Almost 700 years ago, the Shroud of Turin was proclaimed to be the same burial shroud that covered Jesus of Nazareth. Such a claim was subsequently examined by several experts to determine its authenticity. The Mississippi Miracle deserves a similar close inspection. Some believe that the impressive results are simply a result of strict accountability and weaker teacher unions that, it is often claimed, prioritize job security over student learning.10
Experience has taught us that the smaller the reported effect of an intervention on the grand enterprise of education, the more likely it is to be true.
Others have pointed to Mississippi’s 2013 Literacy-Based Promotion Act (LBPA) as the cause of the observed changes. The LBPA emphasizes training teachers in the “Science of Reading,” identifying and providing help to students with reading deficiencies, and holding students back in the 3rd grade if they don’t meet a minimum score on the 3rd Grade Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) student achievement test in English Language Arts (ELA), or MAAP-ELA (i.e., the gate). Two of the architects behind the implementation of LBPA have since leveraged the Mississippi Miracle to secure prominent positions outside of the state. Carey Wright was Superintendent of Education from 2013 to 2022 and now has the same role in Maryland, where yet another miracle has been recently reported.11 Phil Bryant, governor from 2012 to 2020, was recently appointed to the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for the NAEP.
The success attributed to the LBPA, and in particular, the 3rd grade retention policy, is influencing other states who are scrambling to follow suit (e.g., Arkansas,12 Utah,13 Indiana, Ohio,14 and Nebraska15). Oklahoma is even considering retaining struggling readers as early as first or second grade.16 The House Appropriations Committee held a hearing in February 2026 to learn more about state-level policies.17 Is retention the key component of the miracle? Retention has always been controversial due to the negative social-emotional effects that retained students experience.18 Some also question whether retention improves later reading performance.19 If not retention, is it the teacher training in the science of reading and the four years of reading initiatives (K–3) that are responsible for most of the gains? What exactly should other states rush to replicate if they hope for similar results?
The best way to untangle what is going on would be to design an experiment where Mississippi kindergartners are randomly assigned to the following four conditions through the 3rd grade: (1) new-and-improved reading initiatives with no 3rd grade retention, (2) the old reading instruction with no 3rd grade retention, (3) new-and-improved reading initiatives with 3rd grade retention, and (4) old reading instruction with 3rd grade retention. After four years, this design would allow us to answer three questions concerning the effects of LBPA components on 4th grade NAEP reading performance: (1) do the reading initiatives work? (e.g., 1+3 outperforms 2+4), (2) does retention work? (e.g., 3+4 outperforms 1+2), and (3) is the effect of either reading initiatives or retention mediated by the other? (e.g., the new reading initiatives only show an advantage when kids are retained). Such large-scale experiments are costly but important as we witnessed with the Tennessee Class Size Experiment in the 1980s.20 In the absence of experimental evidence that would allow for causal conclusions, we are left considering various plausible reasons for the apparently improved NAEP score that a randomized experiment could easily rule out. Unfortunately, these other possible reasons cannot be confirmed, just like the claim that the Mississippi Miracle was caused by the LBPA’s improved reading initiatives, retention, or both, cannot be confirmed. But the latter causes can be disconfirmed along with other plausible causes. We now present seven such possible reasons for Mississippi’s impressive rise in 4th grade NAEP reading rankings. (See supporting figures and tables.21)
1. Recent improvement reflects continued momentum prior to LBPA.
So did the miracle begin in 2015 with the implementation of LBPA? Mississippi NAEP scores had been improving long before then. From 2005 to 2015, NAEP reading scores increased ten points (204 to 214). Since then, they have increased only five points. Perhaps the Barksdale Reading Institute, a $100 million investment founded in 2000, deserves most of the credit. Would scores have continued to increase without the LBPA? Without a randomized experiment (including a control group that did not receive the LBPA) we can’t know without making heroic assumptions. But the trend for ten years before LBPA was certainly increasing.
When this left truncation of the score distribution occurs, the overall average increases … all of the observed gain in performance can be accounted for by the retention policy with three points left over.
2. Retention Prevents Low-Scoring 3rd Graders from taking the 4th Grade NAEP
The LBPA passed in 2013 but was not fully implemented until 2015. Beginning in the spring of 2015, all 3rd graders were required to achieve at least a score of 2 (out of 5) on an annual state reading assessment to advance to the 4th grade. This had the effect of preventing a sizable portion (5.6 percent) of the lowest scoring 3rd graders in 2016 from taking the NAEP in 2017. When this left truncation of the score distribution occurs, the overall average increases. Using the formula we derived earlier,22 removing the bottom 5.6 percent would yield an improvement in average score of about four points. Mississippi’s 4th grade NAEP reading score average increased by only one point from 2015 to 2017. So all of the observed gain in performance can be accounted for by the retention policy with three points left over. One implication of those extra points is that the rest of the LBPA aside from the retention policy actually lowered scores a little. The same goes for the four-point increase from 2017 to 2024. With the new retention policy holding back over 9 percent of 3rd graders in 2018–19 and 2021–22 based on low reading ability, the NAEP increases should be higher.
Of course, Mississippi had been retaining 3rd graders for all sorts of reasons long before 2015. But the criteria changed in 2015 to focus just on the reading score. Similar to what happened in Houston and El Paso, low scorers were held back and prevented from participating in the 2015 NAEP. Gavin Newsom has pointed out that, based on basic statistical theory, the retention policy inflates the NAEP results.23
3. Increased exemption rates temper LBPA effects.
But what about the sustained level of performance and five-point increase since 2015? Several defenders of the Mississippi Miracle have claimed that retention alone cannot explain the successes since 2015 because retention rates have actually decreased while scores continue to improve.24 Table 1 displays data for Mississippi 3rd graders taking the gate test since 2014. Retention rates have decreased twice—first after the implementation of LBPA in 2015 and then again after the minimum score on the gate test was increased (from 2 to 3) in 2019. If one only looks at the retention rates, it seems that the retention policy is not the sole cause of the NAEP improvements because decreased retention rates are associated with higher scores. That would also imply that the K–3 reading initiatives were the cause of improved student performance. But were they? Or is it only smoke and mirrors that lead us to believe that they are?
According to the LBPA, a 3rd grade student who does not pass the gate test (score 3 or higher since 2019) may still be promoted by the school district for “good cause.”25 These causes include promoting those who have (a) previously been retained twice, (b) passed an alternative assessment, or (c) been identified as having either a disability or (d) limited English proficiency. In contrast to retention rates, the percentage of students who have received a good cause exemption has increased since the minimum score was raised in 2019. Both retention and exemptions are indicators that students are deemed “not ready for 4th grade.” This means that the overall percentage of 3rd graders (retentions plus exemptions) who are not passing the gate test is not decreasing. Thus, the LBPA reading initiatives do not appear to be reducing the percent of 3rd graders who score low on the state reading test.
4. Increased Accommodations = Increased Performance
One might argue “So what?” The kids who receive the exemptions still have to take the 4th grade NAEP reading test the following year. It appears that the good cause exemption category largely responsible for the increase in exemptions has been diagnosing students who don’t pass the gate as having disabilities. This is similar to what happened in Houston. But rather than prevent them from taking the test, Mississippi has increased the percentage of disability-labeled students who are allowed to take the NAEP with accommodations such as extended time, taking breaks during testing, cueing to stay on task, preferential seating, or testing in a separate session compared to everyone else being tested in a packed large room. Such accommodations typically benefit all students’ test performances regardless of disability status.26 The most common accommodation is extended time. The relation between extra time and the amount of boost to a test score is sometimes complex,27 but the question is never “did the accommodation boost scores?” but rather “how much of a boost?”
From 2003 to 2024, the percentage of Mississippi 4th graders classified as having disabilities for the NAEP increased from 9 to 20 percent. This increase was second only to West Virginia. The percentage who were tested with accommodations increased from one to 12 percent.28 It is hard to imagine that such testing accommodations would not have some positive effect on scores.
5. The miracle did not extend to later reading assessments.
Any salt-worthy miracle would also increase students’ reading ability in parallel with the increases in their reading scores. Thus, greatly improved student reading ability demonstrated in increased 4th grade scores should also show up later when the same students are tested for reading proficiency. Mississippi is one of eight states that require all 11th graders to take the ACT as a state accountability test. Despite the fact that 11th graders in 2025 would have been exposed to three years of LBPA from 2015–18, Mississippi’s rank among the states with regard to scores on the ACT reading subtest has not improved. In both 2018 and 2025 only Nevada did worse among those eight states.
Mississippi ranks last in teacher pay. Does anyone really believe we should push for lower teacher pay to achieve miraculous results?
Since 2005, Mississippi’s 4th grade NAEP reading scores have increased 15 points, but 8th grade NAEP scores have increased by only two points. Eighth-graders tested in both 2022 and 2024 would have been exposed to the full four years of the K–3 LBPA intervention. Thus, as has been noted,29 the effect of the miracle had apparently run its course by 8th grade. Granted, compared to the U.S. overall, Mississippi has not experienced as much of a decline in 8th grade NAEP reading scores since 2019. But in 2020 the COVID pandemic caused a major disruption to education and not all states responded by closing down schools to the same degree.
6. Reduced Learning Loss from Increased In-Person Instruction
We can see how this was manifested in Mississippi by starting with the COVID pandemic that hit in 2020. States differed dramatically in terms of how long schools were shut down to be replaced by remote instruction.30 Whereas Oregon, Maryland, and California students spent about 20 percent of the 2020–21 school year in school, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana students spent around 75 percent of the school year in school. Learning loss was likely greater for those students forced to spend more time learning remotely than in person. This was confirmed by the NAEP trends from 2019 (pre-COVID) to 2024 for the two sets of states. Oregon’s, Maryland’s, and California’s scores decreased, whereas Alabama’s, Mississippi’s, and Louisiana’s scores did not decrease. Reduced learning loss from COVID could explain part of Mississippi’s improved ranking in NAEP scores since 2019 and the “southern surge” overall.
7. Statistical Score Adjustment with Close to 100 Percent Poverty
Next let us discuss what happens to Mississippi’s NAEP scores when they are adjusted for poverty. First, we note that a policy of retention to prevent low scoring students to take the test is but the other side of the adjustment coin. When scores are adjusted, some proportion of student scores are not counted. This is obvious from the results. If a state’s ranking improves after adjustment it can only mean that some of its lower scoring students are not being counted. The greater the gain, the more students of low performance are being ignored. If the adjustment is being done on the basis of the size of the student population in poverty, the state benefits by increasing its poverty level as much as possible. As stated earlier, Mississippi now ranks first for both 4th grade reading and math when adjusted for poverty and race. How did this happen? Mississippi’s Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) rate, an indicator of poverty, amazingly, almost miraculously, was 99.7 percent in 2022, up from 74.9 percent in 2014–15. The next highest state was Nevada with 81 percent. Arkansas, Alabama, and Louisiana’s average increase was about 3 percent over the same time period. What changed? The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), enacted in 2010, allows high-poverty schools to serve breakfast and lunch free to all students without collecting household FRL applications. In CEP schools, districts may report all enrolled students as eligible for free lunch regardless of each student’s household income because everyone receives free meals.
The Urban Institute, which adjusted performance on the 2024 NAEP, uses FRL and it is highly variable across states.31 It appears that Mississippi took full advantage of the CEP whereas other states did not. Mississippi’s FRL increased almost 25 percent from 2019 to 2022, but it does not have an actual poverty rate that is considerably higher than other states. Using FRL rate to statistically adjust NAEP scores for poverty inflates the adjusted scores for Mississippi greatly.
Conclusion
The Mississippi Miracle has received widespread publicity. There are few willing to question the emperor’s new clothes; instead many are scrambling to adopt Mississippi’s educational policies. Any proclaimed miracle deserves close inspection combined with a good dose of skepticism. The present examination reveals seven possible, non-LBPA, reasons for the impressive improvement in ranking attributed to Mississippi’s 4th grade NAEP reading scores since 2015: (1) an earlier trend of improvement that began in 2003 simply continued, (2) the 3rd grade reading gate prevented low scorers from taking the 4th grade test, which raised the overall average, (3) an increasing number of exemptions given to 3rd graders reveals no improvement in 4th grade readiness, (4) an increasing percentage of 4th graders are being classified as having disabilities and receiving NAEP testing accommodations that likely improve scores, (5) similar miraculous gains have not been observed for 8th grade NAEP or 11th grade ACT reading scores, (6) reduced learning loss during the pandemic due to high in-person instruction rates compared with most other states, and (7) an exceptionally (and inaccurately) high poverty rate used to statistically adjust scores inflated rankings. Thus, the LBPA may not play a large role in improved NAEP scores as other have suggested.32
Forty years ago, Connecticut’s Education Enhancement Act increased funding for teachers so that five years later, salaries had increased 62 percent to become the highest in the nation. By 1998 Connecticut 4th graders scored the highest (232) on the NAEP reading test, a 10-point increase since 1994. The percent of 8th graders scoring proficient or higher was also first in the nation. Connecticut’s White, Black, and Hispanic students outscored their counterparts in the other states (Wise, 2019).33 Sound familiar? This was the Connecticut Miracle.
The miracle was lauded by the top education scholars.34, 35 But like all education miracles, it did not last. Connecticut reverted its policies back to national norms and soon experienced national results. By 2005, the 4th grade NAEP reading scores had dropped six points. In 2024, Connecticut’s reading score had dropped down to 219—tied for 7th place with … Mississippi! Mississippi ranks last in teacher pay.36 Does anyone really believe we should push for lower teacher pay to achieve miraculous results?
Suppose someone walks into a cold house and is faced with two options. The more expensive one is turning up the furnace and heating the entire house. The cheaper one is holding a lighted match under the thermostat. Similarly, boosting a state’s NAEP scores can be done in two ways. The more expensive one is improving the entire educational system starting with prenatal care, daycare, full-day kindergarten, teacher aides, etc. The cheaper one is reducing the impact of low-scoring students by retaining them or reclassifying them as special education, or by adjusting the overall score by giving lower weight to the low-achieving groups so their influence is vastly diminished. The latter solution may give the appearance of a miracle but sooner or later everyone realizes that the house is still cold.
Given what we have found with our deeper dive into the Mississippi Miracle, we must conclude that enthusiasm surrounding a rush by other states to replicate the Mississippi model be tempered with hard won empirical wisdom. We ought to not blindly yield to the entreaties of the supporters of the Mississippi Miracle (so aptly described in Acts 26:14).
We wish to acknowledge the assistance of the following University of Texas at Arlington graduate students: Nasja Aude, Cole Davis, Veronica Erives, and Jaclyn Foster.
