Tag: SB 488

The Question Remains: Will CA Teacher Prep Programs Be Held Accountable for Meeting the New Literacy Standards?

Posted on by

On April 19th, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing voted unanimously to reaffirm Mills College at Northeastern’s (MC:NU) accreditation despite a complaint filed jointly by Decoding Dyslexia CA, Families in Schools, and the California Reading Coalition. 

Our complaint found the college’s new educator preparation program failed to meet the literacy teaching requirements mandated by Senate Bill 488.

This Complaint Matters
As a result of SB 488, which passed in 2022, California has new and improved literacy standards and expectations for teacher candidates and their preparation programs. DDCA fought very hard over several years for these standards because we know the solution to children’s struggles with reading are teachers who are knowledgeable about the science of reading and evidence-based teaching methods. Our educators deserve to be prepared for the critical job of teaching kids to read. CA kids’ futures depend on it.

The new literacy standards under SB 488 demand that pre-service teachers learn how to screen students for reading difficulties, including risk of dyslexia, as well as implement structured literacy in the classroom. The new literacy standards also require that teacher preparation programs incorporate the California Dyslexia Guidelines so that new teachers are better prepared to meet the needs of students with, or at risk for, dyslexia. 

The above components were not found in the MC:NU course syllabi. Furthermore, their coursework paid insufficient attention to the five components identified by the National Reading Panel as necessary for reading. The MC:NU coursework emphasized typical balanced literacy practices such as guided reading, leveled texts, and running records and also included required course readings by controversial curriculum authors Fountas & Pinnell. The three-cueing method of reading instruction, which was debunked by cognitive science decades ago, was embedded throughout their coursework. Finally, the program didn’t mention how to provide additional help for struggling and multilingual students.

Failing to follow science fails kids!

The MC:NU program is one of the first new teacher preparation programs to apply for accreditation under the new literacy standards. If MC:NU’s program is accredited, this will set a dangerous precedent. The door will be wide open for what is deemed “acceptable” coursework and literacy instructional practices for all other California teacher prep programs. 

The 4/19 Meeting
In addition to nine written public comments, the meeting had many call-in commenters who brought passion and expertise to the topic. We urge you to listen to the voices of those who care deeply about this issue. (To listen to the public comments, please click on the images below.)

The first two audio clips are from Maryanne Wolf and Sue Sears who were two of the literacy experts appointed by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing to develop the new standards. In their public comments, they each expressed significant concern that MC:NU’s teacher prep program has fallen short of meeting the standard requirements.


“[The new literacy standards] seem to be misunderstood at Mills College at Northeastern. It is unfortunate, but from my opinion after 30 years of intervention work, this fails to meet the standards that you [the Commission] asked us to bring to every teacher so that every teacher could be prepared to teach every child.”

 

“In the case of Mills College, we have three concerns [insufficient coverage of foundational skills, very little attention to reading assessment practices, and the omission of the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, which are integral to meeting the needs of all California students]. We think the syllabi deserve further examination as does the program.”

 

“We sincerely hope the Committee on Accreditation and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing take into consideration the rigorous requirements institutions of higher ed must meet in order to adequately comply with [the literacy standards].”

 

“My team of analysts reviewed the syllabi provided by Mills College. Based on these documents, had Mills College been part of the sample of programs we reviewed for our [June 2023] report, it would have earned a grade of F for failing to provide adequate coverage of the five core components of reading instruction.”

 

“We are at a critical juncture as the literacy standards will not make a difference if the Commission does not hold our teacher prep programs accountable for complying with them… The [Commission] is required, under law, to ensure that the programs satisfy these new literacy teaching standards.”

 

“Most families simply trust. They trust that people in power, like you, will uphold the law to ensure that their children will have educators equipped to teach their children to read and to help them succeed in school. They trust the system, and so because you are the system, I am here today to ask you to investigate our complaint and ensure the law is followed so that every new teacher can effectively teach every student to read.”

 

“I urge the Commission to take appropriate and immediate action to investigate the complaint filed on the Mills College at Northeastern’s teacher preparation programs. There are fundamental issues at stake here. 2022’s SB 488 put into law specific key requirements for preparing new teachers to teach reading aligned with the best current evidence. Our young students deserve this evidence-based instruction and our new teachers deserve to be prepared. [Mills College at Northeastern] falls well short on meeting those requirements.”

 

“Running records, guided reading and three-cueing failed me as a teacher and failed my students who deserved instruction grounded in science… My story is not at all unique. Thousands of teachers are currently seeking knowledge counter to the balanced literacy methods they learned in their teacher prep [programs]. Please use your authority to enforce California’s standards for teacher preparation.”

Next Steps
The Commission voted unanimously to send the complaint back to the Committee on Accreditation (COA) for reconsideration. The COA is the body established in state statute to review programs and make final program accreditation decisions.

At the June 6-7 COA meeting, they will vote on whether to reconsider their previous approval of the MC:NU Multiple Subject program based on the complaint. 

While DDCA was disappointed the 4/19 meeting did not result in an investigation of the complaint or provide technical assistance, we are heartened that there is a next step. It is now in the hands of the COA to review and determine whether the MC:NU program upholds the new literacy standards. 

The evidence is clear to us that MC:NU is out of compliance with SB 488. We hope the COA uses their authority to uphold the law. 

For the future of 6 million public school children in California, DDCA stands on the side of science.

Read more about the complaint here: Sharp divisions over how California’s aspiring teachers will be taught to teach reading | EdSource

And, please encourage family, friends, and colleagues to sign up for DDCA emails to stay informed on all literacy-related efforts in California.

Too many student’s can’t read

Posted on by

The image above is from the cover of the CCSSO report A Nation of Readers

Thanks to Carol Kocivar and Ed100.org for co-authoring this insightful blog.

 

California’s literacy crisis

By almost any standard, California is failing to meet its most basic education goal: literacy. Millions of students struggle to read.

This conclusion isn’t based on just one test. Numerous indicators document this failure. Happily, we know what to do about it. Change will require action in every school.

Start with the data

Year after year, the Nation’s Report Card (NAEP) has shown that most California students are not proficient in reading. This is the only assessment that measures what U.S. students know and can do in various subjects across the nation, states, and in some urban districts.

This failure isn’t just a figment of how the national test is designed. California’s Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments show similar disturbing results. At every grade level, about half of students do not meet English Language Arts Literacy Standards.

 

The California Reading Report Card draws similar conclusions from the CAASPP data. “… today, half of California’s students do not read at grade level. What’s worse, among low-income students of color, over 65% read below grade level. Few ever catch up.”

Diagnose the problem

The problem is not your usual suspects — poverty, lack of resources or non-English home language. The problem is how schools teach reading.

According to the California Reading Report Card:

“ …it is not the students themselves, or the level of resources, that drive student reading achievement — the primary drivers are district focus on reading, management practices, and curriculum and instruction choices.…

“The 30 top achieving districts come in all types: urban, rural, and suburban, across 10 different counties, with high-need students levels ranging from 39% to 96%. Any district can succeed at teaching reading.”

The report card was designed to measure how well schools teach reading, separate from the contributions of outside resources.

How is your school district doing? Find out here.

Embrace the science of reading

Learning to read doesn’t happen naturally — it has to be taught. Years of scientific research have revealed a great deal about how reading develops. This body of knowledge from the fields of neuroscience, cognitive psychology, education and others is referred to as the science of reading. See summaries here and here.

Replace approaches that don’t work

Even though so much is known about reading, there is a wide gap between the science and the teaching in the classroom. Recognizing the difference between typical practices and structured literacy, the kind of teaching based on science, is important.

It’s not just a matter of preference or the swing of a pendulum. Common teaching approaches rely on cueing, a practice we now understand impedes reading development. Cueing encourages children to guess words based on pictures and context clues. It is one among several problems embedded in typical teaching practices and curricula. The “Route to Reading Avoid a Lemon” video helps parents spot problematic instruction.

Why is it so hard for schools to get early reading right? Many teachers have not been trained in evidence-based methods, popular instructional materials don’t reflect the science, and districts across California have already sunk millions of dollars into teaching methods based on discredited theory.

Learn lessons from a dyslexia lawsuit

Policymakers need to look closely at the terms of a proposed settlement agreement in a federal class action lawsuit against Berkeley Unified. The plaintiffs argue, in part, that the district failed to appropriately identify children at risk of reading difficulty. Exhibit A of the settlement agreement contains a detailed proposal to develop a literacy improvement program. It includes research-based assessment plans as well as reading programs and recommends limited use of Fountas & Pinnell LLI and Reading Recovery in cases involving students with suspected reading disabilities.

What should California do?

California is not alone in its need for better reading policies. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) focused on literacy in its 2021 report A Nation of Readers.

The California statewide literacy task force to help all students reach the goal of literacy by third grade, by 2026, presents the opportunity to do better. Recommendations will be introduced in the 2022 legislative session. We hope they include the following:

Key Recommendations for Legislation
Universal screening Screen all students K-2 for risk of reading difficulties. Many states already do short universal screenings appropriate for the students’ age and cultures. Learn more about California’s pending screening legislation SB 237 here.
Respond quickly to student needs Provide guidance and support to schools with the implementation of evidence-based programs to give students the level of support they need when they need it, an approach called Multitiered Systems of Support (MTSS). A slightly struggling student needs less support than a child with more serious learning needs. English Learners may have different needs.
Replace outdated instruction School districts should replace outdated literacy methods and adopt structured literacy for all students. Reading is not something that comes naturally. All students benefit from a curriculum that meets their needs in the areas of foundational skills and reading comprehension. See primer.
Invest in a better curriculum Provide school districts with additional funding to invest in highly rated, culturally relevant curriculum with evidence of improving student achievement for students who struggle to read. EdReports is a good resource for researching curricula.
Teach educators how to teach reading Provide ongoing professional development and coaching of teachers, administrators, and support staff in the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of instruction based in science.
Improve reading instruction at schools of education Right now, too many teacher candidates graduate without learning how to teach the updated approach to reading. Education professors and education schools need to learn the updated science of reading including the California Dyslexia Guidelines and include it in teacher preparation coursework, as defined in the new California law SB 488.
Help parents help their children Parents can benefit from training on how to support early readers at home. Tennessee’s recent Free Decodables to Use at Home to Build Strong Reading Skills initiative is a good example of how to extend learning at home. Families are provided free “sound out books” along with guidance for helping their children learn how to read. Schools can work with PTAs and other community organizations to support this effort.

Megan Potente, M.Ed. is Co-State Director for Decoding Dyslexia CA, a grassroots movement made up of parents, educators and other professionals dedicated to raising awareness and improving access to resources for students with dyslexia in California public schools. Megan has 20 years of experience working in elementary education, including roles as a classroom teacher, special education teacher, reading specialist and literacy coach. She is the parent of a thirteen year old son with dyslexia and co-leads the San Francisco Dyslexia Parent Support Group.