Following the release of our study What ed schools aren't teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren't learning--in which we reported the dismal finding that 15 percent of a representative sampling of ed schools weren't teaching the science of reading--we do have one piece of encouraging news. The customary pushback that usually follows on the heels of any rallying cry for the science hasn't happened. There's usually no shortage of educators willing to insist that the science of reading isn't science but a "point of view," but not this time. Could the end of the reading wars possibly be in sight?
The new president of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Sharon Robinson, responded to our report with refreshing candor, though a bit too much patience: "The professional community does indeed see the need for change." She went on to say that the new research "is in fact starting to influence the field." Robinson's tempered remarks represent quite a sea change for an organization that once argued that the science was either invalid or a right-wing plot to put scripts in every classroom.
NCATE (whose schools, we learned, are no more likely to teach the science than non-accredited schools) came out blasting--but it wasn't entirely clear at whom the blast was being directed. We'd like to think it wasn't us, but that may be wishful thinking. In an aggressively distributed press release, NCATE told the world that it plans to begin to hold its schools accountable for what they teach about reading sometime next year. Given that the research consensus is close to 20 years old, might we suggest the fast track?
And in an interesting twist on the reading wars, we learned that NCATE is sitting on an important new study that examines the degree to which state licensing tests actually test any reading knowledge that is based on science. NCATE's reluctance seems to be a pattern in Washington these days (see below), but in this instance it's anyone's guess why NCATE is blocking the release. Ironically, the paper was paid for by U.S. Department of Education Reading First funds so the paper is unlikely to be hidden much longer.
For the study, the nation's largest testing company, ETS, obligingly gave access to a review team from AACTE to look at five of its tests that purportedly test reading knowledge (which begs the question, how many reading tests does this nation need?). As it turns out only one of the five, the Praxis 0201, contains much science, and that test is only used by Tennessee...and only sort of. Tennessee has never set a passing score for the test so it's not clear how anyone could fail.
The NCATE study did find three other tests that test what they say they test. All were tailor-made for three states with a strong track record for their dedication to reading science: Massachusetts, California and Virginia. And given the reluctance of so many ed schools to teach the science of reading, these tests play a critical role. Until ed schools accept the science in earnest, the only practical way to ensure that teachers get the training they need to be effective with the most children will be for states to require stand-alone reading tests. Anything less--including any test in which only a portion is dedicated to the reading science--will continue to fall short.