“The consequences of illiteracy are staggering. It erodes a child’s self-esteem, triggers shame and for some becomes a pipeline to prison. The ripple effects impact the family, community, workplace and economy,” the writers say. (Ilija Erceg, Getty Images/iStockphoto/The Minnesota Star Tribune)

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The answer to the question posed in the Star Tribune front page headline Nov. 27, "Can new laws reverse reading declines?" is an emphatic "yes" — and "no" — and "it all depends" (on when you expect to see results).

Yes: The methods used to teach a child to read in the classroom are absolutely essential to developing proficient readers. The Minnesota READ Act aligns education policy and teacher training with scientifically proven methods that work. Kudos to Minnesota's legislators for ending use of a decadeslong educational approach that failed to teach many of our children to read.

No: It isn't enough. Laws don't create readers. Nor are teachers solely responsible. A misperception is that training teachers will solve the reading problem. We set teachers up to be scapegoats for what ails our society. It's time communities hold themselves accountable.

Language skill development doesn't begin in, nor is it confined to, a classroom. It begins at birth. Long before teachers employ "the science of reading," a child's brain is being wired to read.

Infants generate approximately 100,000 new neurons each day. Roughly a million connections per second. Some 80% of brain development happens in the first three years. Connections either get used or the child's brain discards them — they wither and never return. It is possible to overcome poor brain nurturing, but it is much harder, takes longer, and costs more than doing it right from the start.

It will "take a village," not just teachers, to make Minnesota the state with the highest reading proficiency scores with the fewest racial inequities than any other state. Our benchmarks of success should be set so every child is wired to read by age 3 and reads proficiently by grade three. Half a million K-12 students in Minnesota cannot read proficiently. Each year about 60,000 are born. There is no time to lose.

While the problem crosses the socioeconomic strata of our state, it disproportionately affects those living in pockets of poverty and in communities of Black, Indigenous and people of color. Minnesota has one of the worst racial reading inequity gaps in the country. Reading is a civil rights issue we know how to fix.

First and foremost comes the role of parents, guardians and family in nurturing a child's brain. Next come child-care providers. Pediatricians can identify children lacking a caring adult — opening an opportunity to assure each child does.

The consequences of illiteracy are staggering. It erodes a child's self-esteem, triggers shame and for some becomes a pipeline to prison. The ripple effects impact the family, community, workplace and economy.

We have what it takes to achieve this goal. Minnesota is the "capitol of social capital" according to Harvard public policy Prof. Robert Putnam. Minnesota excels in volunteerism, contributions to charities, tax dollar investments in social policies and philanthropic contributions to our unprecedented nonprofit safety net systems. Yet we rank among the worst in reading score racial inequities. Mississippi does a far superior job with a pittance of our social capital. Minnesota can certainly do better.

We need grassroots community innovation. Strategies that tap Minnesota's social capital. Imagine a "rally to read" to mobilize parents, early childhood providers, teachers, literacy experts, pediatricians, civic organizations, the business community, faith community leaders, senior citizens and others. What works in the urban core may be distinct from the suburbs, rural towns and tribal communities.

Grassroots innovation generates low-cost/no-cost strategies that require no legislative appropriation. They build on what already exists. Scale up successful efforts and innovate new approaches to augment what happens in the classroom. The expertise of educators, medical professionals and researchers can identify best practices with proven success. Targeted approaches can prioritize the children who need it the most.

It all depends (on when we expect results): System change is slow. Community innovation is not. The Minnesota READ Act set in motion a monumental systemic change for the teaching of reading. The reforms include transforming teacher training and new curriculum. Neither the public policy change nor the investment in education reforms automatically lead to improved reading proficiency. It will take years to see measurable results.

Change is hard. Parents and community coalitions can accelerate results by rallying to support teachers and schools through this seismic shift. Communities can develop dashboards to hold themselves accountable to monitor benchmark data to assess if the strategies are resulting in proficient readers.

We either invest in literacy now, or pay for the consequences in the future. Art Rolnick, former senior vice president and director of research at the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, has calculated an inflation adjusted 18% return on investment in improved literacy.

Let's rally to read with a fierce urgency of now.

Monica Martin, of Monticello, is a member of Latinos Helping Latinos. Tim Munkeby, of Minnetonka, is an author and retired public school teacher. Tim Reardon, of St. Paul, is a public affairs consultant. Eric Olson is superintendent of the Monticello School District.