Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Science Of Reading topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Barstow review finds uneven alignment of Alabama teacher-prep courses with science of reading
Summary
A national review commissioned by the state finds many pre-service reading courses and textbooks only partially aligned with evidence-based 'science of reading' practices and recommends a task force, faculty-focused cohorts and tighter syllabus/textbook guidance.
A national review team convened by the Barstow Reading Institute and presented to the State Board of Education on Thursday found inconsistent alignment between Alabama teacher-preparation coursework and the science of reading, and urged coordinated reforms in textbooks, syllabi and faculty professional development.
The presenter, Miss Butler of the Barstow Reading Institute, said the review assessed syllabi, assigned textbooks, faculty interviews and course assignments from public universities and programs. "Our goal was not to rate or rank or score programs. That was not our job nor were we equipped to do it," Butler said, adding the team's task was to check alignment to evidence-based literacy instruction.
Key findings offered to the board included: - Syllabi and course materials: Of roughly 128 syllabi reviewed, the team found a wide range of alignment. The reviewers classified about 50% of syllabi as "inconsistently aligned," roughly 16% as not aligned, 15% of syllabi included non-evidence-based content, and 11% lacked sufficient information for a determination. - Textbooks: The team reviewed about 93 textbooks used in required reading courses and found 62% rated as "fair, minimal, or none" for alignment with the science of reading in the parts assigned to students. - Subtest vs. bundle reporting: The team recommended schools disaggregate subtest pass rates and to avoid conflating performance across the four elementary subtests (reading/listening/writing components) when interpreting first-attempt pass rates.
The report highlighted several recurring opportunities for improvement: clearer, shorter course objectives and stronger sequencing; more explicit, systematic and sequential instruction in foundational skills for literacy; more modeling of evidence-based instruction; stronger practicum connections between coursework and classroom practice; and deeper coverage of learning differences, including dyslexia and multilingual learners.
Butler outlined practical recommendations the board could support: a higher-education task force of faculty and deans to vet syllabi and textbooks; faculty-only LETRS or similar cohorts to deepen instructors' knowledge of the science of reading; a recommended (nonbinding) list of aligned textbooks and curricula; and modest program-level assessments to ensure candidates meet core reading knowledge before classroom placement.
Board reaction and discussion: Several board members and deans who attended praised the constructive tone of the review and urged rapid follow-up. Carolyn Corliss, dean at Huntington, described how her campus had already used the review to align arts-and-science coursework with Praxis content and to ask arts-and-sciences faculty to take teacher-prep tests so they better understand candidates' expectations.
Practical next steps: Butler and the department proposed forming a higher-education task force (the review's "Path Forward" cohort), inviting national literacy experts as advisors, and sharing an annotated list of textbook alignment across the state. Several deans said they already are changing textbooks and course sequencing where the evidence suggested a straightforward improvement.
Ending: The Barstow team offered to remain an available advisor and to help convene faculty-only professional-development cohorts. The board asked staff to fold the report's recommendations into an upcoming higher-education task force and to return with progress updates and any proposed administrative-code adjustments.
