Findings: Reading instruction
A higher proportion of Illinois's undergraduate elementary programs evaluated teach the effective reading instruction than was found in NCTQ's 2006 national study (21 percent, as opposed to 15 percent), and a lower proportion fail this standard entirely (44 percent versus 55 percent).
In graduate elementary programs evaluated, the number of programs meeting the standard was lower than in undergraduate programs (17 percent), but the proportion failing entirely was lower as well (33 percent).
The results mean that fewer than one in five of the evaluated undergraduate and graduate elementary programs is arming future elementary teachers with a full arsenal for the most important job they have: teaching reading.
Of the five Illinois education schools whose undergraduate elementary preparation programs were included in that national study, one has maintained the strength of its excellent preparation (Loyola University Chicago), two have improved their preparation, one marginally and one substantially (Northern Illinois University and Eastern Illinois University, respectively), and two have stayed at rock bottom with preparation that entirely fails to prepare their very substantial numbers of elementary teacher candidates (Illinois State University and Southern Illinois University Carbondale).
We found numerous examples of inconsistency in preparation. For example, while DePaul University provides some preparation in reading for its undergraduate elementary teacher candidates, it does not provide any reading instruction whatsoever for graduate early childhood teacher candidates, who will certainly be teaching reading in grades K-3, the very time that children must learn how to read. (In fact, all three of the graduate early childhood preparation programs we evaluated failed to meet the standard.)
General findings on the second reading standard are not meaningful since ratings are best evaluated in the context of an individual program's score on Standard 28a, that is, they indicate how programs that receive high ratings for reading may be diluting the value of that preparation because some courses teach effective reading while other courses provide contradictory instruction.
How Illinois institutions fare on this standard
How Illinois institutions fare on this standard
A last feature of reading preparation should be noted, and that is how negligence in reading instruction is compounded by the fact that only a small percentage of the 104 textbooks reviewed (12 percent) accurately and comprehensively address all five components of the science of reading, with an additional quarter that can be used to cover one or more, but not all, of the components of effective reading instruction. In fact, there were only four programs that steered entirely clear of unacceptable textbooks: Bradley University, Kendall College, Knox College and Rockford College. This was not a surprising finding, as we have now reviewed over 630 textbooks in a number of states, and found only a small number that appropriately cover effective reading instruction.1
A complete list of ratings for required textbooks in Illinois' teacher preparation programs can be found in Section 16 of this appendix. In addition, we provide more extensive reviews on 14 textbooks, six of which we deem "acceptable core" textbooks. This section of the appendix also provides information about the reading expert who served as the textbook reviewer.
