Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
    • Think Again
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
  • Events
  • Scholars Program

Report on Licensure Alignment with the Essential Components of Effective Reading Instruction

Coby Loup
9.13.2006

Diana W. Rigden
Reading First Teacher Education Network
September 2006

This report from the Reading First Teacher Education Network (RFTEN) points to stagnant NAEP reading scores and asks an important question: Are elementary teacher licensure tests aligned with "the essential components of effective instruction as defined by scientifically-based reading research (SBRR)"? The author evaluated eight licensure exams--five developed by Educational Testing Service (ETS) and three by National Evaluation Systems (NES)--and measured them against the SBRR's five essential components as defined by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension. Encouragingly, she found that tests developed specifically to measure a teaching candidate's knowledge of reading--ETS's Introduction to the Teaching of Reading and NES's Foundations of Reading, for example--generally pass muster. So why the crummy NAEP scores and the moans that have accompanied them? The problem, it seems, is that "most states require future elementary teachers to take multi-subject licensure tests that have few items directed explicitly to the teaching of reading." (It is unclear what exactly "most states" means.) ETS's Elementary Education: Content Knowledge and Middle School English Language Arts are two such culprits. This observation has been made before; indeed, Rigden's report closely resembles Sandra Stotsky's own recent evaluation of licensure tests, which looked at five of the eight exams Rigden reviews. Rigden also recommends, however, that the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, which sponsors the RFTEN project, strengthen its own standards "to guide and influence the quality of teacher preparation programs in the United States." Nothing revolutionary here, but the report does help amplify the national grumbling over mediocrity in teaching. Rigden's and Stotsky's reports, along with the NCTQ's recent attack on education schools, form a nice one-two punch against the nemesis of poor teacher quality.

Tags: Educational Testing Service English studies National Assessment of Educational Progress National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education National Council on Teacher Quality National Reading Panel Reading Sandra Stotsky
+3 More Show Less

Coby is a policy analyst for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. He also maintains the Institute's website. By a happy turn of events, Coby landed at Fordham via the Institute for Humane Studies, where he was a Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow. He graduated from Brown University with a degree in political science.A Colorado native, Coby enjoys hiking and running outdoors. He also enjoys the indoors--especially bookstores,…

View Full Bio
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]