Pandemic school disruptions, frustrations with ineffective reading methods, and sinking test scores lit a fire under the nascent science of reading movement which has borne fruit across the nation and raised hope that student reading achievement will begin to climb again. The science of reading is a comprehensive effort to change both policy and practice for the benefit of students, but one area that is sometimes overlooked is teacher preparation: ensuring not only that new teachers are trained in the five pillars of early literacy (and all that goes with them) but also that they are not being taught outdated, ineffective, or downright harmful curricula and instructional methods.
Teacher Preparation Inspection-US (TPI-US) has been conducting inspections of teacher preparation programs at colleges and universities across the country since 2013, partnering with the institutions themselves, as well as with state agencies and philanthropy. Literacy instruction was always an area of concern, but it became a central focus for TPI-US inspection teams starting in 2021 due to the raft of bad news coming on the heels of pandemic education disruptions. In partnership with the Barksdale Reading Institute, TPI-US began by reviewing every teacher prep program in Alabama, supplying data-based judgments about how well programs taught the science of reading to their pre-service teachers. These findings formed the basis of their current practice, detailed here. Their latest working paper is an informative snapshot of the changes that have taken place at one university over the last few years, describing two inspections of Southern Arkansas University’s Teacher Education Department (SAU) conducted in 2022 and 2024. It shows what the authors describe as a “shining example” of the positive changes they are working to make.
Among the initial findings in 2022: SAU’s literacy coursework covered the science of reading (including each component of structured literacy) but didn’t include adequate course-embedded connections to real-world practices so that teacher candidates could understand how to apply what they learned. Nor did pre-service teachers have sufficient opportunities to work with elementary students in real classrooms.
In consultation with TPI-US inspectors, SAU officials planned to restructure their literacy courses to integrate practice-based learning throughout the program, including placement in K–1 classrooms for the most junior teacher candidates and placement in grade 3–6 classrooms as they gained teaching experience. Their classroom work was also to include administering assessments, analyzing test results, and assisting in instructional planning using those data. Additionally, SAU staff and students would partner with veteran teachers and elementary school administrators to help review and select high-quality instructional materials to be used in those classrooms.
Returning in 2024, TPI-US found that all of these action items had been completed, and more besides. SAU had also created a structured mentoring program pairing veteran teachers with teacher candidates and now gave students frequent opportunities to observe and analyze recorded lessons using high-quality curricula and teaching methods. This is all good news, but unfortunately the details in the TPI-US working paper grow sparse from here on. We are told that “feedback from district partners” and “individual student growth” are both positive as a result of the revamp, but only the former is expounded on and that only to a vague degree. “District partners have consistently remarked on how much better prepared teaching candidates are to teach literacy and implement high-quality instructional materials in their classrooms effectively” we learn, and “this preparedness has led to districts actively seeking out SAU candidates for hiring, recognizing the value they bring in terms of literacy instruction proficiency and readiness.”
It is not that these findings don’t represent positive movement. Restructuring teacher preparation is a non-negotiable element of successful implementation of the science of reading and we do at least discover that—however it happened—SAU was readily accepting of big changes to their program. That’s not nothing. But measurable improvement of elementary students’ literacy achievement is the true arbiter of a job well done, and those data are conspicuously and unhelpfully absent from the paper. Maybe it’s too early to tell. If so, hopefully reporting that information is on the radar of TPI-US’s researchers sooner rather than later. But it is only in moving the student achievement needle that any policy or programmatic restructuring can be judged as successful. And the clock is ticking loudly for our youngest readers.
SOURCE: “Portrait of Practice: Southern Arkansas University,” TPI-US (April 2025).
