Findings: Reading instruction
In the programs that we evaluated, the percentage of undergraduate and graduate special education programs that met our first reading standard was significantly higher than undergraduate and graduate elementary programs, respectively, but that was still well below the majority: one-third of undergraduate programs met the standard and about 40 percent of graduate programs did so.
The second reading standard must be considered in the context of an individual program's score on Standard 36A because it indicates whether 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.
In addition, while this review only examined both undergraduate and graduate special education at two institutions, we found inconsistency in preparation at both, as indicated in the graphic below. Northeastern Illinois University's preparation is complete only at the graduate level whereas Northern Illinois University's is completely absent at the graduate level.
A final noteworthy feature of reading preparation is that the weaknesses are compounded by the fact that only a small percentage of the 104 textbooks we 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, we found only five institutions that steered entirely clear of inappropriate textbooks: Bradley University, Dominican University, Eureka College, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, and the University of Illinois at Chicago. This was not a surprising finding, as we now have reviewed over 630 textbooks in use in a number of states, finding 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.
How Illinois institutions fare on this standard
How Illinois institutions fare on this standard
