Special Education Preparation in Reading:
Rhode Island
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers Policy
Analysis of Rhode Island's policies
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.
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.
The
state'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.
Regarding
struggling readers, the state's standards intend that teachers "make
appropriate accommodations and modifications for individual students who
have identified learning differences or needs in a ... Individual Education Plan." The Early Childhood: Content Knowledge test only vaguely
addresses the topic by requiring teachers to 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 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. The assessment should clearly
test knowledge and skills related to the science of reading and address
all five instructional components of scientifically based reading
instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and
comprehension. If the test is combined with an assessment that also
tests general pedagogy or elementary content, it should report a
subscore for the science of reading specifically. 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 scientifically based reading instruction.
Ensure that new special education teachers are prepared to incorporate informational text of increasing complexity into classroom instruction.
Rhode
Island has taken a step in the right direction with its adoption of the
elementary Multiple Subjects test, which mentions knowledge of
informational texts. However, the framework does not appear to capture
the major instructional shifts of college- and career-readiness
standards. The state is therefore encouraged to strengthen its teacher
preparation requirements and ensure that all elementary special
education candidates 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,
too, 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—more specifically
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.
-
Rhode Island
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Early Childhood
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science and Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Special Education Preparation in Reading
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Pensions
Research rationale
Reading science has identified five components of effective instruction.
Teaching children to read is the most important task teachers 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.
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. 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. NCTQ's reports 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 2013 and 2014, have consistently found the overwhelming majority of teacher preparation programs across the country do not train teachers in the science of reading. 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 a license to new special education elementary teachers who can demonstrate they have the knowledge and skills to teach children to read.
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. 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. That some states actually require less from special education teachers in terms of preparation to teach reading than they require from general education teachers is baffling and deeply worrisome.
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 a 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 text. While most states have not ignored teachers' need for training and professional development related to these instructional shifts, few states have attended 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. For special education teachers, preparation and training must focus on managing these instructional shifts while also helping students who may have serious reading deficiencies.
Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction: Supporting Research
For evidence on what new teachers are not learning about reading instruction, see NCTQ, "What Education Schools Aren't Teaching About Reading and What Elementary Teachers Aren't Learning" 2006) at:http://www.nctq.org/nctq/images/nctq_reading_study_app.pdf.
For problems with existing reading tests, see S. Stotsky, "Why American Students Do Not Learn to Read Very Well: The Unintended Consequences of Title II and Teacher Testing," Third Education Group Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2006; and D. W. Rigden, Report on Licensure Alignment with the Essential Components of Effective Reading Instruction (Washington, D.C.: Reading First Teacher Education Network, 2006).
For information on where states set passing scores on elementary level content tests for teacher licensing across the U.S., see chart on p. 13 of NCTQ "Recommendations for the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Removing the Roadblocks: How Federal Policy Can Cultivate Effective Teachers," (2011).
For an extensive summary of the research base supporting the instructional shifts associated with college- and career-readiness standards, see "Research Supporting the Common Core ELA Literacy Shifts and Standards" available from Student Achievement Partners.