Study Links Strong Teachers’ Unions to Slower Literacy Reform as U.S. Reading Scores Remain Weak

A new analysis argues that states with powerful teachers’ unions have adopted fewer evidence-based literacy reforms, but national testing data show student performance is shaped by a far more complicated mix of factors.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17, 2026 — A new education-policy analysis is generating debate after finding that states with stronger teachers’ unions tend to have adopted fewer recommended early-literacy reforms.

The analysis was conducted by Rachel Canter, director of education policy at the Progressive Policy Institute and founder of Mississippi First, an organization that advocated for education reforms in Mississippi.

Canter compared state teachers’ union strength with adoption of 18 early-literacy policies tracked by ExcelinEd, an education-policy organization that promotes evidence-based approaches to teaching children how to read.

Her analysis found a strong negative correlation: states where teachers’ unions wield greater influence generally had adopted fewer of the literacy policies included in ExcelinEd’s state-by-state framework.

 

 

 

Political control was also associated with substantial differences. Democratic-led states had adopted approximately nine of the 18 policies on average, compared with roughly 13.5 among Republican and politically competitive states.

Canter argues organized labor may help explain part of that gap because teachers’ unions have sometimes opposed policies involving curriculum mandates, teacher preparation, testing, school accountability and mandatory grade retention.

The analysis received national attention after the New York Post characterized the findings as showing that “blue states with strong teachers’ unions” generally had weaker literacy policy scores than many Republican-led states.

But the underlying measure deserves an important clarification: the analysis primarily compares literacy-policy adoption scores, not a simple ranking showing that every strongly unionized state produces worse student reading performance.

Canter herself cautioned that political labels and measures of union power can be too reductive because education systems differ substantially in demographics, poverty, funding, governance and implementation of classroom policies.

The Fordham Institute’s separate 2026 analysis confirms that teachers’ unions are considerably stronger in Democratic-controlled states. Eight of the ten strongest-union states had Democratic trifectas in 2024.

At the opposite end, none of the states classified as politically blue appeared among the bottom 20 for union strength, excluding Washington, D.C., according to Fordham’s updated rankings.

Fordham also identified an important confounding factor: states with weaker unions generally face more challenging socioeconomic circumstances, including higher poverty rates and lower levels of educational attainment among adults.

That makes establishing cause and effect difficult. A statistical relationship between union strength and literacy policies cannot by itself demonstrate that weakening unions would automatically increase students’ reading achievement.

The broader national data are troubling regardless of political affiliation. In 2024, only 30% of fourth-grade public-school students performed at or above NAEP Proficient in reading, down two percentage points from 2022.

Across states and jurisdictions, the proportion of fourth graders reaching NAEP Proficient ranged from approximately 20% to 48%, illustrating enormous differences in reading outcomes across American public-school systems.

 

 

 

NAEP also cautions that its “Proficient” category should not be interpreted simply as being at grade level. It is a specific achievement standard used by the national assessment program.

Between 2022 and 2024, no state recorded a statistically significant increase in average fourth-grade reading scores. Five states declined, while 47 states and jurisdictions showed no significant change.

Looking over a longer period produces a more striking result. The Education Commission of the States reports that only Mississippi and Louisiana achieved statistically significant increases in NAEP reading scores during the past decade.

Mississippi has consequently become the centerpiece of the current policy debate, transforming from a state known for poor educational outcomes into one of America’s most closely studied literacy success stories.

Without demographic adjustments, Mississippi moved from being tied for last nationally to the national average in fourth-grade reading and mathematics by 2019, according to Canter’s review of NAEP results.

By 2024, Mississippi’s fourth graders tied for seventh nationally in reading and 13th in mathematics, while recording some of the largest improvements in the country since 2013.

Canter attributes that progress to sustained reforms including early literacy screening, teacher training, instructional coaching, curriculum changes and requiring some struggling third graders to repeat the grade while receiving additional support.

Other Southern states subsequently adopted similar approaches, producing what education researchers increasingly call the “Southern surge” rather than simply a broader Republican-state advantage.

That distinction matters because several Republican-led states with relatively weak unions have nevertheless adopted comparatively few recommended literacy policies, including Wyoming and South Dakota, according to Canter’s analysis.

Meanwhile, Democratic-led states including New Mexico, Maryland and Massachusetts have enacted significant literacy reforms despite union opposition or negotiation, demonstrating that union strength does not automatically prevent policy changes.

Education experts also caution that many states adopted “science of reading” legislation only recently, meaning there has not yet been enough time to determine whether those laws will produce sustained improvements.

The Education Commission of the States says implementation remains underway across much of the country and warns against interpreting current NAEP results as definitive evidence that recently enacted literacy policies have failed.

The emerging debate therefore involves more than whether unions are politically powerful. It concerns which reading policies work, how faithfully schools implement them and whether states sustain reforms long enough to change classroom instruction.

Canter’s analysis provides evidence that stronger-union states have generally adopted fewer recommended literacy policies, while Mississippi demonstrates that comprehensive reforms can coincide with substantial gains in national reading assessments.

What the evidence does not establish is that teachers’ unions alone cause low literacy. Student achievement reflects numerous interacting factors, making the headline considerably simpler than the underlying education-policy debate.