Teacher Prep Review 2020 Program Performance in Early Reading Instruction Acknowledgments NCTQ teacher preparation team Graham Drake (Managing Director), Laura Pomerance (Director, University Relations), Christie Ellis, Christine Lincke, Amber Moorer, Ruth Oyeyemi Reading specialists Robert Marino (Lead), Deborah Glaser (Textbook Reviews), Mary Alibrandi, Susan Clarke, Gordon Gibb, Julie Shirer, Jamie Snyder Analysts Akinyele Cameron-Kamau, Christian Bentley, Scott Bickard, Jessica Bischoff, Nakia Brown, Maria Burke, Jess Castle, Kimberly Charis, Rebecca Dukes, Jamie Ekatomatis, Cheri Farrior, Jennifer Dailey Grandberry, Michelle Linett, Karen Loeschner, Jeanette Maydan, Kelsey McManus, Rosa Morris, Sakari Morvey, Ashley Nellis, Amanda Nolte, Chi Ogbonna, Chelsea Phillips, Ian Reinert, Stacey Rudolph, Michael Savoy, Marisa Shubert, Rebecca Sichmeller, Winnie Tsang, Mariama Vinson, Alexandra Vogt, Karin Weber, Myrna Williams, Victoria Wimalarathna Advocacy and Communications Ashley Kincaid, Nicole Gerber, Samantha Jacobs, Elizabeth Ross NCTQ Leadership Kate Walsh (President) Board of Directors Thomas Lasley (Chair), Clara Haskell Botstein, James Cibulka, Chester E. Finn, Jr., Ira Fishman, Bernadeia Johnson, Henry L. Johnson, Craig Kennedy, F. Mike Miles, Chris Nicastro, John L. Winn, Kate Walsh (ex officio) Technical lead Jeff Hale, EFA Solutions Project Funders NCTQ receives all of its funding from foundations and private donors. We appreciate their generous support of the Teacher Prep Review. Arthur & Toni Rembe Rock Sidney A. Swensrud Foundation Barr Foundation The Achelis & Bodman Foundation Carnegie Corporation of New York The Anschutz Foundation Chamberlin Family Foundation The Boston Foundation Charles Cahn The Bruni Foundation Finnegan Family Foundation The Irene E. & George A. Davis Foundation J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Family Foundation The James M. Cox Foundation Laura and John Arnold The Lynch Foundation Lloyd A. Fry Foundation The Phil Hardin Foundation Longfield Family Foundation The Sartain Lanier Family Foundation Rainwater Charitable Foundation Trefler Foundation Searle Freedom Trust Walker Foundation Sid W. Richardson Foundation Anonymous (7) Program Performance in Early Reading Instruction Key findings The number of elementary programs 1 The type of teacher preparation program teaching scientifically-based reading matters. Undergraduate programs are instruction to their aspiring teachers nearly twice as likely to teach scientifically- continues to increase, a clear trend since based instructional methods as graduate the first edition of the Teacher Prep Review. programs, and four times more likely as Over 50 percent of traditional programs non-traditional “alternative certification” earn an A or a B, compared to only 35 programs. 2 percent in 2013. Of the five components of scientifically- 3 based reading instruction, traditional Teacher prep programs in Mississippi programs are most likely to omit the first performed the highest of any state’s and most challenging instructional skill programs (repeating their strong teachers need to teach before children performance in the last edition of the can learn to read: phonemic awareness. Teacher Prep Review), followed closely Narrowly half (51 percent) provide by Utah. Other notable states with instruction in this skill in which children strong performances by a majority of their must accurately identify the speech programs were Arkansas, Delaware, sounds in words. Additionally, too few Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Minnesota, programs (only 53 percent) spend enough New Hampshire, Ohio, and Oklahoma. time teaching about the importance of States with the most notable improvements reading fluency. Preparation in how to among programs include Arkansas, teach phonics, vocabulary, and Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, comprehension are more prevalent. 4 Vermont, and Wisconsin. www.nctq.org 1 2020 Teacher Prep Review 2 www.nctq.org Program Performance in Early Reading Instruction America’s persistent reading crisis Each year well over a million public school students who have reached the fourth grade are added to the nation’s ranks of nonreaders.1 The lion’s share (two-thirds!) are black and Hispanic children, who struggle to achieve in the face of an inequitable education system.2 While there are certainly middle-class white children who have difficulty reading, the real fault line for America’s high illiteracy rate is class and race. Effective remediation strategies are largely inaccessible to these nonreaders, which is why 43 million American adults are essentially illiterate, and cannot read well enough to decipher a ballot, file their tax returns, or read their own mail.3 What makes America’s stubbornly high rate of illiteracy disturbing is that it is so unnecessary. Research conducted on tens of thousands of children and adults, readers and nonreaders alike, largely under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health, has provided the roadmap needed to slash the rate of reading failure from three in 10 children to one in 10.4 It begins with making sure that teachers can understand and employ research-based instructional methods. It continues with requiring that teachers have the right tools: summative and formative assessments that accurately gauge their students’ reading progress and, of course, strong curricula. It is not unlike the components of a successful surgery, with a doctor’s deep knowledge as the foundation, supplied by the right diagnostic and surgical equipment — not to mention plenty of support. The need to guarantee that teachers have expertise in reading instruction (as well as other critical skills NCTQ assesses)5 before being entrusted with a classroom of children is the purpose behind the Teacher Prep Review. By regularly reviewing the reading coursework and practice opportunities provided by more than 1,200 elementary teacher preparation programs, the National Council on Teacher Quality seeks basic evidence that programs are guided by what is empirically known, not ideology or individual preference. NCTQ spent 10 years establishing a fair and accurate way to measure if a program is teaching the science of reading before officially launching the Teacher Prep Review in 2013. No fewer than 10 pilot studies, starting in 2006, were conducted to ensure that the Early Reading standard served as a fair reflection of a program’s approach.6 Its structure is the synthesis of research from the 2000 National Reading Panel, convened by the U.S. Congress, reaffirmed by the Institute of Education Sciences in 2009 and again in 2016.7 How NCTQ assesses program adherence to the science of reading The methodology used by NCTQ to rate programs in early reading is summarized in a brief animated video and provided in more detail, along with the rubrics used to score programs, on the NCTQ website.8 Elementary teachers need to understand and know how to teach the five components of reading science: (1) developing in their students awareness of the sounds made by spoken words (phonemic awareness); (2) systematically mapping those speech sounds onto letters and letter combinations (phonics); (3) giving students extended practice for reading words so that they learn to read without a lot of effort (fluency) — allowing them to devote their mental energy to the meaning of the text; (4) building student vocabulary, a skill closely www.nctq.org 3 2020 Teacher Prep Review associated with the final component; (5) developing their students’ understanding of what is being read to them and eventually what they will read themselves (comprehension). To assess if aspiring teachers are likely to acquire knowledge of these five components, NCTQ first reviews the required reading courses for each elementary program, an analysis each program is asked to verify. A team of reading experts — all professors and practitioners with advanced degrees and deep knowledge of how children learn to read — evaluate the syllabi for these courses. They review the planned lecture topics, assigned readings, assignments, assessments, and opportunities for practice. Every textbook that is required in these reading courses is also evaluated to assess if it accurately supports none, some, or all of the five components of scientifically-based reading instruction, and is based on consensus research. Together, these experts are not just looking for passing mentions of the five essential components. For example, a reference to any of the five components in the stated objectives for a course is considered insufficient evidence. They look for clear evidence of dedicated course time as well as measures to hold teacher candidates accountable for learning each component. Every program is given the opportunity to provide extensive input on the analysis several times before publication. This includes a confidential review of their preliminary score with the option of submitting additional evidence for analysis. For this edition of the Teacher Prep Review, approximately 15 percent of the sample chose to provide further attestation, a cooperative process that led to scoring updates for 60 percent of those programs. Process of collection, analysis, and publication for the Teacher Prep Review Voluntary Documents Analysis and Publish requests for received review findings documents Send preliminary Open records Verify with ratings to request to public program that all programs, programs data is complete integrate feed- back into analysis Intensive search for documents from other sources 4 www.nctq.org Program Performance in Early Reading Instruction How a program earns an A To earn an A on the Early Reading standard, programs must demonstrate coverage of all five components, each of which must figure prominently in the required reading coursework. Programs are deemed to provide adequate coverage of a component if at least two of the three criteria below appear in a single course: 1. Explicit and repeated instruction on each of the five components 2. Support for instruction with high-quality textbooks that accurately detail established principles of scientifically- based reading practices 3. Opportunities for teacher candidates to demonstrate mastery through in-class assignments, tests, and instructional practice Programs drop a full letter grade for each component that is not adequately addressed. A more detailed description of the scoring methodology, including the rubric used to evaluate each component, is available here.9 Here are some examples of how a course could be found to provide sufficient coverage of a component: Readings that accurately present the content with two or more lectures dedicated to the component n Readings that accurately present the content and the requirement of instructional practice in the component n Two or more lectures and a test dedicated to the component n Two or more lectures and assignments dedicated to the component n www.nctq.org 5 2020 Teacher Prep Review 2020 National Findings 1. Programs have increased their coverage of all aspects of the science of reading, a trend that has persisted through each edition of the Teacher Prep Review. Traditional program coverage of each of the five reading components, 2013-2020 77% 80% 73% 68% 65% 62% 66% 58% 60% 51% 53% 53% 53% 43% 45% 38% 35% 40% 20% 0% Phonemic Awareness Phonics Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension 2013 2016 2020 NOTE: The data shown here for 2013 include both the original 594 programs published in 2013 and the additional 275 programs reported in 2014, for a total of 869 programs. All of the data for those two releases were collected between 2011 and 2014. The 2016 data represent data on 1,011 programs collected between 2015 and 2016, but were again published in two releases (undergraduate elementary in 2016 and graduate elementary in 2018). Data for the 2020 release for 1,047 programs were collected in 2018 and 2019. Compared to the first Teacher Prep Review, at least 10 percent more programs now provide adequate instruction in each of the five components of scientifically-based reading. However, phonemic awareness, the first skill children must master if they are to become successful readers,10 remains the least likely to be taught in a program’s coursework. Barely half of programs (51 percent) cover it adequately. Teachers are not any more likely to learn the importance of fluency (the ability to read without effort), with only 53 percent of programs providing adequate coverage of that component. 6 www.nctq.org Program Performance in Early Reading Instruction 2. In its approach to reading preparation, the field of teacher education is at an inflection point, with the momentum favoring the science of reading. For the first time, more than half of all traditional programs earn an A or a B by providing adequate instruction for at least four of the five components. This represents a 6-point increase since the 2016 edition and a 16-point increase over the 2013 edition. Distribution of traditional program grades, 2013-2020 2020 26% 25% 10% 21% 18% 2016 20% 25% 10% 25% 21% 2013 16% 19% 11% 22% 33% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% A: All 5 components covered B: 4 covered C: 3 covered D: 2 covered F: 0 to 1 components covered NOTE: The Teacher Prep Review included 869 programs in 2013; 1,011 programs in 2016; and 1,047 programs in 2020. The previous practice of scoring some programs as “pass” or “fail” in lieu of a letter grade when scored with less complete information has been eliminated, with programs earning a “pass” now earning a B and programs earning a “fail” earning a D. This change was applied retroactively to previous editions so that the table above provides an in-kind comparison of all editions of the Teacher Prep Review. Due to rounding, some years add to 101 percent. www.nctq.org 7 2020 Teacher Prep Review 3. The science of reading now prevails in undergraduate programs, with a clear majority now earning an A or B. However, graduate programs are stagnant. Undergraduate programs have improved their coverage of scientifically-based reading instruction since NCTQ first began to examine them, with 57 percent now earning an A or B. This steady growth represents a 10-point improvement when compared to 2016 and an 18-point increase over the 2013 Teacher Prep Review. Distribution of grades, undergraduate programs, 2013-2020 2020 29% 28% 9% 19% 15% 2016 21% 26% 10% 25% 18% 2013 18% 21% 11% 21% 29% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% A: All 5 components covered B: 4 covered C: 3 covered D: 2 covered F: 0 to 1 components covered NOTE: The Teacher Prep Review included 654 programs in 2013; 820 programs in 2016; and 775 programs in 2020. Graduate programs improved slightly from 2013 to 2016, but have since stagnated.11 While a greater percentage of graduate programs earn an A in 2020, the percentage of programs earning the top two grades is unchanged from 2016. It is important to note that this is due in part to graduate programs that are appearing in the Teacher Prep Review for the first time, which on average score below programs that have appeared in previous editions. Distribution of grades, graduate programs, 2013-2020 2020 17% 16% 13% 28% 27% 2016 13% 20% 10% 25% 32% 2013 12% 12% 9% 23% 44% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% A: All 5 components covered B: 4 covered C: 3 covered D: 2 covered F: 0 to 1 components covered NOTE: The Teacher Prep Review included 215 programs in 2014; 194 programs in 2016; and 272 programs in 2020. Due to rounding, some years add to 101 percent. 8 www.nctq.org