It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. More than ever before, our newly released Teacher Prep Review: Decoding Progress in Reading Preparation tells a tale of two completely different approaches to how teacher preparation programs across the country are giving future teachers the knowledge and skills to implement scientifically based reading instruction. Nationally, roughly half of programs we reviewed (53%) earn an A, up from just 26% in 2023—meaning they teach all five core reading components aligned to the evidence base and avoid discredited practices. This progress proves that teacher prep can transform to align to best practices.
The bad news is about half (47%) of teacher prep programs fall short in giving teachers the skills and knowledge they want and need to be effective teachers of reading. One in five programs still teach debunked reading methods, despite clear scientific evidence that they’re ineffective—or even harmful to students. For example, nearly one in five prep programs (18%) teach candidates to use running records, a debunked assessment tool that encourages students to guess words based on context (rather than sounding them out).
While states should be leveraging their authority to review and approve programs, teacher prep programs themselves need to make the transition to align to the evidence. In fact, when teacher prep programs include methods of teaching that run counter to the evidence and research, they are selling aspiring teachers a faulty product. When teacher prep faculty lack the knowledge and skills to teach reading aligned to the robust evidence base (especially given readily available professional learning opportunities), or when they refuse on philosophical grounds, they are complicit in misrepresenting what aspiring teachers need to know about reading instruction.
This misleading approach to reading instruction cheats four groups of consumers: the districts that have to spend money and time to remediate the new teachers; the teachers who receive the students in the next grade and have to make up for lost time; the well-meaning new teachers themselves, many of whom will leave the profession when they are ineffective; and most importantly, the students. Worse, it is the students who are farthest from opportunity who are assigned at higher rates to these brand new, poorly trained teachers.
——-
Foundations of Reading Results: 2015–2024: Wisconsin Teacher Preparation Programs
Early Literacy Screener Map.
When A Stands for Average: Students at the UW-Madison School of Education Receive Sky-High Grades. How Smart is That?