The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) just published Will Flanders’ The FORT Gap: How Inconsistent Teacher Preparation Is Fueling Wisconsin’s Literacy and Educator Crises, a report on how results on Foundations of Reading Test (FORT) show that Wisconsin’s teacher candidates aren’t sufficiently prepared in the Science of Reading, which is the gold-standard in reading instruction. That’s bad news for Wisconsin teachers—and worse for Wisconsin’s students, who won’t have teachers properly prepared to them how to read. Flanders’ report is an excellent summary of the issue for Wisconsin audiences—and for all Americans, since insufficient preparation for English Language Arts (ELA) teachers, especially in the Science of Reading, is a nationwide problem.
It isn’t the only problem for our ELA classrooms. The worst flaw of Common-Core style ELA instruction is that it focuses on skills instruction and neglects literary content—full-lenth, sophisticated, classic works of fiction and nonfiction. Notables such as Doug Lemov, Natalie Wexler, and E. D. Hirsch, Jr. have argued persuasively students need to be taught to read good books as an essential component of learning how to read. As the classical education schools know, the Science of Reading needs to be married to the enduring, challenging content that sparks children to want to read. That same combination inspires our own The Cather Standards: Model PreK-12 State English Language Arts Standards (National Association of Scholars and Freedom in Education); the Cather Standard, by saying what students should learn, implicitly provides a curriculum for ELA teacher preparation.
Implicitly only, alas. The existing standard National Evaluation Series (NES) English Language Arts (301)examination doesn’t entirely ignore good books. One of its five content domains is Analyzing and Interpreting Literature—although even in this domain, only 2 of the 4 competencies really address literature knowledge rather than techniques of how to analyze literature. ELA teachers should be tested centrally for their thorough content knowledge of good books from American literature, Western literature, and World literature.
———
2026-2027 Madison K-12 $pending continues to grow, fueled by a 9.7% (!) property tax increase. Total spending will be at least $706,000,000 for 25,003 students, or $28,236 per student.
May 2026 Madison School District Presentation: 7,095 adults for 25,003 students (3.52 students per adult!)
Early Literacy Screener Map.
Map: Foundations of Reading Results: 2015–2024
Where have all the students gone?
3,887 Madison 4 year old to third grade students scored lower than 75% of the students in the national comparison group.
Madison taxpayers have long supported far above average k-12 tax & $pending. This despite our long term, disastrous reading results. May, 2026: 7,095 Staff for 25,003 students; $pending > $26k per student!
Madison Schools: More $, No Accountability
The taxpayer funded Madison School District long used Reading Recovery…
The data clearly indicate that being able to read is not a requirement for graduation at (Madison) East, especially if you are black or Hispanic”
A.B.T.: “Ain’t been taught.”
My Question to Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers on Teacher Mulligans and our Disastrous Reading Results
2017: West High Reading Interventionist Teacher’s Remarks to the School Board on Madison’s Disastrous Reading Results
Madison’s taxpayer supported K-12 school district, despite spending far more than most, has long tolerated disastrous reading results.
“An emphasis on adult employment”
Wisconsin Public Policy Forum Madison School District Report[PDF]
WEAC: $1.57 million for Four Wisconsin Senators
Friday Afternoon Veto: Governor Evers Rejects AB446/SB454; an effort to address our long term, disastrous reading results
Booked, but can’t read (Madison): functional literacy, National citizenship and the new face of Dred Scott in the age of mass incarceration.
When A Stands for Average: Students at the UW-Madison School of Education Receive Sky-High Grades. How Smart is That?