In South Orange-Maplewood School District, a ‘Haven of Progressiveness,’ It’s Not So Black and White
November 6, 2023
Newark Teachers Union Sues the District For Refusing to Share Racism Report
November 7, 2023JUST OUT: New Jersey Uses ‘Weak’ Elementary Teacher Licensure Tests That Don’t Tell Us If Teachers Can Teach Kids To Read
In a new analysis out today, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) finds that most states (29 states and the District of Columbia) use a weak elementary teacher reading licensure test, meaning that they do not effectively measure teachers’ knowledge of scientifically based reading instruction prior to entering the classroom. This shortcoming means that, every year, nearly 100,000 elementary teachers across the country enter classrooms with false assurances that they are ready to teach reading.
New Jersey uses the Praxis Elementary Multiple Subjects test and the Praxis Reading and Language Arts test. NCTQ rates our tests as “weak” for not adequately addressing the five core components of reading. The full report, False Assurances, explains, “weak licensure tests cost everyone: students who are not taught by qualified teachers; new teachers who spent time and money to become prepared; and districts that have to make up the gaps in new teachers’ knowledge, spending valuable funds to remediate.”
Here is the press release issued today by NCTQ:
Many states’ licensure tests don’t signal whether elementary teachers understand reading instruction, provides the most up-to-date analysis on the quality of elementary reading teacher licensure exams being used by each state.
More than 50 years of research has illuminated the most effective way to teach children to read. It requires systematic, explicit instruction in the five core components of the science of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Preparing teachers to teach these five components—known as scientifically-based reading instruction—can ensure more than 1 million additional students enter 4th grade able to read each year.
Unfortunately, far too often, states allow teachers into the classroom inadequately prepared to teach reading. Licensure exams, if rigorous and aligned to the science of reading, can serve as an important guardrail for making sure teachers have this critical knowledge. However, many licensure tests are weak in that they do not adequately assess teachers’ preparedness to teach reading. Far too many states are using these weak tests.
“Every child deserves great reading instruction, but far too many children aren’t receiving it,” said NCTQ President Heather Peske. “As part of a comprehensive strategy to improve reading instruction, states can help ensure teachers are prepared to teach reading effectively by requiring stronger licensure tests.”
Examining every elementary teacher reading licensure exam currently being used by states, NCTQ looked for evidence that the tests adequately address the five core components of reading. NCTQ also examined whether these tests devote undue attention to methods of reading instruction that have been debunked by research and can hinder students from becoming strong readers, such as three-cueing. Additionally, NCTQ checked whether
these tests combine reading with other subjects. This is important because if subjects are combined, the teacher’s understanding of reading could be masked. Using these criteria, NCTQ determined whether tests were strong, acceptable, weak, or unacceptable.
Key national findings:
- Of the 25 elementary teacher reading licensure tests in use by states, the majority (15) are weak. ○ Just six exams are rated “strong” and four are rated “acceptable.”
- Across these 15 weak licensure tests:
- Ten do not adequately address all five components of the science of reading.
- Five combine reading with other subjects, such as social studies or science.
- One includes too much emphasis on content contrary to research-based practices.
- The majority of states (29 states and the District of Columbia) use “weak” tests that do not signal whether teachers have the knowledge they need to teach students to read.
“Teachers who aren’t prepared in the most effective instructional practices for teaching reading unknowingly enter classrooms ill-prepared to help students become successful readers,” said Peske. “This lack of preparation has a profound impact on students’ literacy skills and future prospects, especially among students of color and those living in poverty.”
Roughly one-third of children in elementary classrooms across the country cannot read at even a basic level by the middle of the fourth grade. The situation is even bleaker for historically marginalized students, for whom inadequate reading instruction is yet another barrier to educational equity, with 56% of Black students, 50% of Hispanic students, 52% of students in poverty, 70% of students with disabilities, and 67% of English Learners reading below basic reading levels.
Students who are not proficient readers are four times more likely to drop out of high school, face lower lifetime earnings, and have higher rates of unemployment.
Recommendations
To address this pressing issue, the NCTQ recommends the following solutions.
State education leaders should:
● Transition to a stronger reading licensure test: States select and approve the tests that their teachers must pass for licensure. Requiring a stronger test will likely lead to better reading instruction in elementary classrooms across the state as preparation programs will be motivated to align their courses with the components of reading addressed in a stronger test.
● Require a strong reading test for anyone teaching students in the elementary grades. In some cases, states require reading tests for general education elementary teachers but not for special education teachers or for early childhood teachers who are licensed to teach lower elementary grades. These loopholes ultimately hurt the students who most need teachers capable of building a foundation in literacy.
Testing companies should:
● Shore up weaknesses and clearly identify limitations in existing tests: Both major testing companies, ETS and Pearson, have strong and acceptable reading licensure tests on the market, but they also offer tests that omit numerous topics from the core components of reading, and that combine reading with other subjects, diluting the assessment’s ability to verify teachers’ reading knowledge.
2 Comments
It would be interesting to hear Bob Goodman’s take on this, since he claims that NJ’s selected Praxis, exams are much too difficult for most potential, Elementary teachers to pass.
It’s not the test that’s the issue here. It’s more the teacher training at the college level and the classes that are offered to the students to effectively learn HOW To Teach reading. If you look at some of the courses offered there is no course at the college level that really prepares them or gives them the training needed. They don’t learn all the ins and outs of phonics instruction till they are working with their team in a district and if they are lucky they get the one week training course. The district pays for. There needs to be changes at the undergraduate level to address the training they receive and by whom. Is it by teachers who work in the schools who can work with the college students to model good teaching with fidelity and passion and experience. I am a certified Orton Gillingham teacher and the training I received was phenomenal beyond words but that was after I was working and paid for the courses out of pocket. The colleges need to seek out those teachers who have had experiences working with the various programs and bring them into the college classroom to work with undergrads.
As far as the testing goes, it is a total joke of a money making program all the way around. Why put teachers through a test for something they probably will never need or teach. I have tried to pass the praxis and have spent well over a good some of money to pass a test so I teach gen Ed K-6 reading? I’m a certified OG teacher for over 9 years, a Dyslexia Specialist, and Teacher Trainer with s teaching certification of Teacher of the Handicapped. My observations have all moved me into the category of highly effective, my end of year evaluations were exemplary. But the district I worked in along with the state of NJ decided that I can’t teach kids how to read at interventionist because I can’t pass one section of a test that I will never use. Makes no sense does it? Go up to FB and take a look at some of the posts from teachers who want to move into another area of teaching but can’t pass the test but have great evaluations and summatives or the new teacher who can’t afford to keep paying to try and pass a test they won’t ever need because every district uses something different for Science, Math, Social Studies and Language Arts. So the ones who don’t benefit are the kids bottom line and the testing companies keep making money in the state of NJ and beyond.
Change the way you train your undergrads and drop the test and then maybe the way reading instruction is taught may change and the teachers who have the passion can move into the positions that they were meant to be at.