Teaching Reading: Rhode Island
Special Education Teacher Preparation Policy
Analysis of Rhode Island's policies
Scientifically Based Reading Instruction—Tests and Standards: Rhode Island does not require its special education teachers who teach the elementary grades to pass a rigorous test of reading instruction.
However, to teach elementary or middle grades, special education
candidates will have passed the Praxis II Elementary Education: Multiple
Subjects (5001) test. This assessment does not generate a separate reading score and therefore does not amount to an adequate stand-alone reading test. Further, although better than previous Praxis tests, the Multiple Subjects test does not appear to be fully aligned with scientifically based reading instruction.
Rhode Island does not require that teacher preparation programs for special education candidates address the science of reading. The state has neither coursework requirements nor standards related to this critical area.
Informational Texts: Rhode Island teacher preparation requirements incorporate some of the instructional shifts associated with the state's college- and career-readiness standards
for students. The reading and language arts subtest of the Elementary Education: Multiple Subjects test requires
teachers to understand the "basic elements of ... informational texts,"
but there is no elaboration to suggest that this includes the
instructional shifts toward building content knowledge and vocabulary
through increasingly complex informational texts and careful reading of
informational and literary texts. The Early Childhood Education test addresses both the use of informational texts and text complexity. With regard to the incorporation of informational text of increasing complexity, teachers are required to know how to "explain factors that contribute to text complexity (e.g., vocabulary, sentence complexity, images) [and] select appropriate texts for readers at various levels."
Rhode Island's
early childhood special education teachers will have passed either the
elementary Multiple Subjects test or the Praxis II Early Childhood:
Content Knowledge (5022) test. The reading and language arts subtest of the Multiple Subjects test includes some of the instructional shifts toward building content knowledge and vocabulary through careful reading of informational and literary texts associated with these standards. However, although the framework now addresses complex texts, it does so only in the context of measuring text complexity and does not address how to also incorporate increasingly complex texts into instruction.
To teach secondary grades, special education candidates
will have passed a single-subject Praxis II test. Rhode Island's
assessment for English language arts teachers includes some of the
instructional shifts toward building content knowledge and vocabulary
through careful reading of informational and literary texts associated
with the state's college- and career-readiness standards for students.
Literacy Skills: Rhode Island's Professional Teaching Standards articulate that "teachers
create instructional opportunities to encourage all students'
development of ... literacy across content areas."
However, this standard does not ensure that teachers are adequately prepared to include literacy skills across the core content areas.
Struggling Readers: Regarding
struggling readers, Rhode Island's standards intend that teachers "make
appropriate accommodations and modifications for individual students who
have identified learning differences or needs in [an] ... Individual Education Plan." The Early Childhood: Content Knowledge test only vaguely
addresses the topic by requiring that teachers know the "major indicators
of common reading difficulties (e.g., delays in learning to read,
dyslexia, comprehension difficulties)."
Recommendations for Rhode Island
Require all special education teacher candidates who teach the elementary grades to pass a rigorous assessment in the science of reading instruction.
Rhode Island should require a rigorous reading assessment tool to ensure that its elementary special education teacher candidates are adequately prepared in the science of reading instruction before entering the classroom. It is especially critical that these teacher candidates possess the knowledge and skills related to the science of reading and pass a rigorous test that addresses all five instructional components of scientifically based reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. Elementary special education teachers who do not possess the minimum knowledge in this area should not be eligible for licensure.
Ensure that teacher preparation programs prepare elementary teaching candidates in the science of reading instruction.
Rhode Island should require teacher preparation programs in the state to train special education candidates in all five instructional components of scientifically based reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.
Ensure that new special education teachers are prepared to incorporate informational text of increasing complexity into classroom instruction.
Rhode Island's adoption of the Multiple Subjects test for elementary special education teachers is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, the Multiple Subjects framework does not adequately capture all the major instructional shifts of college- and career-readiness standards. NCTQ encourages the state to strengthen its teacher preparation requirements and ensure that all special education candidates—including those teaching under early childhood and secondary licenses—have the ability to adequately incorporate complex informational text into classroom instruction. Further, although Rhode
Island's required secondary English language arts content test addresses
informational texts, the state should strengthen its policy and ensure, also, that secondary special education teachers are able to challenge
students with texts of increasing complexity.
Ensure that new special education teachers are prepared to incorporate literacy skills as an integral part of every subject.
To ensure that special education students are capable of accessing varied information about the world around them, Rhode Island should also—either through testing frameworks or teacher standards—include literacy skills and using text to build content knowledge in history/social studies, science, technical subjects and the arts.
Support struggling readers.
Rhode Island should articulate more specific requirements ensuring that all special education teachers are prepared to intervene and support students who are struggling with reading. With reading difficulties generally representing the primary reason for special education placements, it is essential that all special education teachers have the knowledge and skills to diagnose and support students with literacy needs.
State response to our analysis
Rhode Island recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.
Updated: December 2017
-
Rhode Island
Select another topic
General Teacher Preparation
- Program Entry
- Teacher Shortages and Surpluses
- Program Performance Measures
- Program Reporting Requirements
- Student Teaching/Clinical Practice
- Teaching Methods
Elementary Teacher Preparation
Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Middle School Content Knowledge
- Middle School Licensure Deficiencies
- Adolescent Literacy
- Secondary Content Knowledge
- Secondary Licensure Deficiencies
Special Education Teacher Preparation
Alternate Routes
Hiring
- Requirements for Out-of-State Teachers
- Provisional and Emergency Licensure
- Licensure for Substitute Teachers
- Supporting New Teachers
Teacher and Principal Evaluation
Teacher Compensation
Retaining Effective Teachers
Early Childhood Preparation
How we graded
4B: Teaching Special Education Reading
- Scientifically Based Reading Instruction: The state should require that all new special education teachers who teach elementary grades are required to pass a rigorous elementary test of scientifically based reading instruction. The design of the test should ensure that prospective teachers cannot pass without knowing the five scientifically based components of early reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The state should require that all teacher preparation programs prepare elementary special education candidates in the science of reading instruction.
- College- and Career-Readiness Standards: The state should ensure that all new special education teachers are sufficiently prepared for the ways that college- and career-readiness standards affect instruction in all subject areas. Specifically,
- The state should ensure that all new special education teachers are prepared to incorporate informational texts of increasing complexity into instruction.
- The state should ensure that all new special education teachers are prepared to incorporate literacy skills as an integral part of every subject.
- The state should ensure that all new special education teachers are prepared to identify and support struggling readers.
Three-quarters of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- Three-quarters credit: The state will earn three-quarters of a point if it requires all new special education teachers who will teach elementary grades to pass a rigorous test of scientifically based reading instruction. The design of the test must ensure that all prospective teachers are competent in the five research-based components of early reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn only one-quarter of a point if the teacher preparation standards for special education teachers address the five components of scientifically based reading instruction, but the state does not have an adequate - or any - scientifically based reading instruction test.
One-quarter of the total goal score is earned based on the following:
- One-quarter credit: The state will earn one-quarter of a point if the state tests or maintains standards to ensure that all new special education teachers are sufficiently prepared for how college- and career-ready standards affect instruction. The state must have at least one of the standards (outlined in component two) "fully addressed" and two "partially addressed" to earn credit.
Research rationale
Teaching children to read is the most important task teachers at the elementary level undertake. Over the past 60 years, scientists from many fields have worked to determine how people learn to read and why some struggle. This science of reading has led to breakthroughs that can dramatically reduce the number of children destined to become functionally illiterate or barely literate adults. By routinely applying in the classroom the lessons learned from the scientific findings, most reading failure can be avoided. Estimates indicate that the current failure rate of 20 to 30 percent could be reduced to 2 to 10 percent.[1]
Scientific research has shown that there are five essential components of effective reading instruction: explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.[2] Many states' policies still do not reflect the strong research consensus in reading instruction that has emerged over the last few decades. Many teacher preparation programs resist teaching scientifically-based reading instruction. Reports by NCTQ on teacher preparation, beginning with What Education Schools Aren't Teaching about Reading and What Elementary Teachers Aren't Learning in 2006 and continuing through the Teacher Prep Review in 2016, have consistently found the overwhelming majority of teacher preparation programs across the country do not train teachers in the science of reading.[3] Whether through standards or coursework requirements, states must direct programs to provide this critical training. But relying on programs alone is insufficient; states must only grant licenses to new special education teachers who can demonstrate they have the knowledge and skills to teach children to read.[4]
Effective early reading instruction is especially important for teachers of special education students. By far, the largest classification of students receiving special education services are those with learning disabilities. Based on data from the U.S. Department of Education, it is estimated that reading disabilities account for about 80 percent of learning disabilities.[5] While early childhood and elementary teachers must know the reading science to prevent reading difficulties, special education teachers, and especially elementary special education teachers, must know how to support students who have already fallen behind and struggle with reading and literacy skills.[6] States should require no less from special education teachers in terms of preparation to teach reading than they require from general education teachers.[7]
College- and career-readiness standards require significant shifts in literacy instruction. College- and career-readiness standards for K-12 students adopted by nearly all states require from teachers a different focus on literacy integrated into all subject areas. The standards demand that teachers are prepared to bring complex text and academic language into regular use, emphasize the use of evidence from informational and literary texts, and build knowledge and vocabulary through content-rich texts. While most states have not ignored teachers' need for training and professional development related to these instructional shifts, states also need to attend to the parallel need to align teacher competencies and requirements for teacher preparation so that new teachers will enter the classroom ready to help students meet the expectations of these standards.[8] For special education teachers, preparation and training must focus on managing these instructional shifts while also helping students who may have serious reading deficiencies.
[1] Torgesen, J.K. (November 2005). Preventing reading disabilities in young children: Requirements at the classroom and school level. Western North Carolina LD/ADD Symposium. Retrieved from http://www.fcrr.org/science/pdf/torgesen/NC-interventions.pdf; Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. D. (2006). What education schools aren't teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren't learning. National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/nctq/images/nctq_reading_study_app.pdf
[2] National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (US). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf; To review further indications of the affirmation of the previously-mentioned research, see: Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., ... & Keating, B. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade: Educator's practice guide. NCEE 2016-4008. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_040717.pdf
[3] Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. D. (2006). What education schools aren't teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren't learning. National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/nctq/images/nctq_reading_study_app.pdf; National Council on Teacher Quality. (2016, December). Landscapes in teacher prep: Undergraduate elementary education. National Council on Teacher Quality's Teacher Prep Review. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/UE_2016_Landscape_653385_656245
[4] Stotsky, S. (2006). Why American students do not learn to read very well: The unintended consequences of Title II and teacher testing. Third Education Group Review, 2(2), 1-37. Retrieved from http://www.tegr.org/Review/Articles/vol2/v2n2.pdf; See also: Rigden, D. (2006). Report on licensure alignment with the essential components of effective reading instruction. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Reading First Teacher Education Network. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.124.9956&rep=rep1&type=pdf; For information on where states set passing scores on elementary level content tests for teacher licensing across the U.S., see: National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Recommendations for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_eseaReauthorization.pdf
[5] Wehman, P. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(4), 194-197. Retrieved from http://ectacenter.org/~pdfs/calls/2010/earlypartc/revitalizing_special_education.pdf
[6] Research also connects individual content knowledge with increased reading comprehension, making the capacity of the teacher to infuse all instruction with content of particular importance for student achievement. See: Willingham, D. T. (2006). How knowledge helps: It speeds and strengthens reading comprehension, learning, and thinking. American Educator, 30(1), 30. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2006/willingham.cfm
[7] Levenson, N. (2011). Something has got to change: Rethinking special education (Working Paper 2011-01). American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED521782
[8] Student Achievement Partners. (2015). Research supporting the Common Core ELA/literacy shifts and standards. Retrieved from https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Research%20Supporting%20the%20ELA%20Standards%20and%20Shifts%20Final.pdf