A Distinction with a Difference
I’m writing in response to the article written by Callie Fausey and published on November 15, 2023, titled “Not as Easy as ABC: Santa Barbara Schools Tackle Literacy.”
I would like to comment on the reference to the National Council on Teacher Quality rating of UCSB’s early literacy instruction and the subsequent quote by Ruth Green about teacher education programs’ preparation of candidates to teach reading.
There is a long history between teacher education programs and the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). The UC Education deans and directors wrote a letter, dated June 1, 2023, to UC chancellors and executive vice chancellors to provide context to the then recent NCTQ ratings of reading instruction in teacher education programs (TEPs).
The letter provided some of this history, as well as links to references from expert researchers who have published about the group’s faulty methodology. To quote from the letter, “The rating system NCTQ uses for these overall assessments is designed almost exclusively to evaluate undergraduate, four-year, teacher education programs. As such, the criteria and methodology used by NCTQ for assessment of teacher education programs are not accurate measures of post-baccalaureate and master’s degree teacher preparation programs, like those offered by the UC TEPs. UC TEPs provide rigorous coursework fully integrated with field experience in schools after candidates complete their undergraduate subject matter preparation.”
Additionally, I would like to address Ms. Green’s claim that, “schools of education do not instruct their teacher candidates how to teach [reading].” This is factually incorrect. In order to be accredited by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC), teacher education programs must respond to program standards that require programs to prepare candidates to teach reading, including the science of reading. Candidates must also pass a test, the Reading Instruction Competency Assessment (RICA), and a performance assessment, edTPA, that measures their ability to teach reading. Furthermore, CTC program standards were recently enhanced with the passage of SB488 to include even more focus on the science of reading and a teaching performance expectation that only covers reading. Finally, it is worth noting that RICA was lauded by NCTQ in a recent article from EdSource.org.
Beyond comprehensively meeting CTC standards, several UCSB TEP faculty (including the elementary literacy methods instructors, our mild/mod program coordinator, the associate director of TEP, and me) participated in reading instruction and dyslexia training in partnership with Peabody Charter School last year. We were trained in using LETRS, one of the curriculums cited in the article, and used many of the principles of the curriculum in our preparation of teacher candidates. While we have been instructing candidates in the science of reading for years, we chose to partner with one of our local schools to make sure we were meeting the needs of the district as we prepare candidates to teach reading. TEP has a long history of teaching all aspects of reading, including the “science” of reading.
There is much more to say about UCSB’s excellence in literacy research, reading instruction, and preparation of teacher candidates. I invite you to learn about the literacy work being done at UCSB.
Tory Harvey, PhD, is director of the Teacher Education Program, Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California Santa Barbara.
