Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Science Of Reading Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Review finds many university courses only partly aligned with science of reading; board told to expect fixes
Summary
An external review by the Barksdale Reading Institute identified uneven adoption of evidence‑based ‘‘science of reading’ practices across university teacher‑preparation syllabi and textbooks and recommended standardized faculty training, shared resources and a tighter nine‑hour curriculum requirement.
The State Board of Education heard the results of an external review of college‑level teacher‑preparation materials that found substantial variation in how institutions teach the ‘‘science of reading.’’
The Barksdale Reading Institute, contracted by the Alabama State Department of Education to examine program syllabi and textbooks, told board members the review uncovered four broad categories of alignment to evidence‑based reading science: fully aligned, inconsistently aligned, misaligned and gaps that require reconstruction.
Why it matters: The board previously required nine hours of science‑of‑reading instruction in state teacher‑preparation programs beyond the baseline literacy law. The Barksdale review, presenters said, is meant to show which institutions are already meeting that standard and which must adjust coursework, assignments and faculty practice to comply.
Findings and recommendations
- Alignment: Reviewers said about 23% of reviewed course materials were fully aligned to evidence‑based reading practices. A larger share showed inconsistent alignment — course descriptions or lectures referenced modern reading models but assigned balanced‑literacy or discovery‑based classroom tasks that are not systematic, explicit phonics instruction.
- Textbooks: The review examined more than 150 textbooks cited on syllabi. Reviewers recommended publishing a state‑level list of primary texts that demonstrably align to the science of reading and providing institutions with approved assignment templates and sample lesson sequences.
- Faculty knowledge and modeling: Barksdale recommended a statewide faculty‑development initiative. The report said many faculty could not describe or model explicit, systematic instruction in phonics and decoding — the type of demonstration teachers need to replicate in classrooms and to prepare candidates for the foundations‑of‑reading assessment.
- Clinical connections: The reviewers urged stronger alignment between campus coursework and field placements. Where campuses teach structured literacy, candidates were sometimes placed in partner schools that used balanced literacy approaches, creating a mismatch in what candidates learn and what they see in practice.
Board reaction and next steps
Board members asked for time to review institution‑level draft reports before those documents are finalized and distributed to campuses. Department staff said they would continue to work with the Barksdale team to produce final institutional reports, append respondents’ comments and then develop an accountability timeline. The department described a separate plan to offer state‑funded faculty cohorts and online modules to accelerate faculty development; several board members supported rapid follow‑up rather than a long, drawn‑out correction process.
Ending
Reviewers recommended standardizing required competencies across the nine‑hour sequence, expanding coherent text and assignment sets at the program level and funding a faculty training cohort. The board asked department staff to propose a timetable and enforcement approach for getting programs fully aligned, with a particular focus on the lowest‑performing programs.
