READING STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK

Peg Ballard and Maureen Prenn

(representing MACTE and Minnesota State University, Mankato)

Please identify your area of targeted feedback:

_X__  Early Childhood & Elementary Licensure    

            ___  Content-Specific Licensure: ______________________________________

            ___  Endorsements (Teacher of Reading & Reading Leader)

In your table group, please discuss each of the questions below. One person at each table will be designated to record notes on the laptop provided. To the extent possible, participants representing the same stakeholder group or organization should be seated at the same table. If multiple licensure fields are represented at a table (i.e.; math, music, etc.), the notes should reflect discussion of each specific licensure area.

Discussion Questions

1. What is the role of reading/reading instruction for teachers in this licensure area?

Clearly, this is a critical area for both early childhood and elementary teachers. This is the time when the foundation of reading is learned.

1. How are teachers in this licensure area currently being prepared in reading/reading instruction?

Early childhood preparation in reading is currently inadequate. Elementary preparation also needs improvement in terms of depth. Currently, there is not enough time to provide everything that is needed. The MnSCU cap on credits prevents programs from adding more content to the programs.

1. How will the proposed standards impact the licensure area in general?

It would put more of a focus on reading and literacy.

1. How will the proposed standards impact these teachers in the area of reading?

They would have much deeper knowledge of reading and literacy.

1. Will the proposed standards better prepare teachers in this licensure area - in general? In reading?

The proposed standards would enhance beginning teachers' knowledge of literacy in general as well as reading.

1. What are the strengths and benefits of the proposed standards? BE SPECIFIC!

Overall, MACTE supports the goal of increasing the level of preparation of preservice early childhood and elementary teachers in the area of reading. These new standards promote a balanced approach to reading instruction. They are broader than just reading, incorporating literacy in general. Additionally, the needs of English Learners are included. The focus on assessment and interventions is much stronger with these standards than in the current standards.

1. What suggestions do you have for improving the proposed standards? BE SPECIFIC!

MACTE suggests that the level of specificity be reduced to make the standards more usable. We have questions about how the many outcomes can be assessed. When we move to sub-numbers (e.g., i, ii, iii), we move to a level of explicitness that is unwieldy. How would we approach tasks like PEPER with this set of standards? Even if we did not need to report content on syllabi, we would be responsible to report on assessment of too many outcomes. How much time would be spent learning content vs. assessing the learning of content? One suggestion is to reduce the level of explicitness but make the more detailed content available to guide faculty as they develop course syllabi and content. Missing content: Response to Intervention (RTI) and oral language development. In general the document covers important areas, but it needs to be more usable.

Other Feedback

If there are any areas that you would like to comment on but are not addressed by the questions above, please note these areas on the electronic feedback form. Also, some stakeholder groups and organizations have chosen to provide a more formal response to the proposed rule language. If you have a written statement, please make a note in this section to refer the task force to the supplemental information.

READING STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK

Peg Ballard and Maureen Prenn

(representing MACTE and Minnesota State University, Mankato)

Please identify your area of targeted feedback:

___  Early Childhood & Elementary Licensure       

            _X__  Content-Specific Licensure: Communication Arts and Literature

            ___  Endorsements (Teacher of Reading & Reading Leader)

In your table group, please discuss each of the questions below. One person at each table will be designated to record notes on the laptop provided. To the extent possible, participants representing the same stakeholder group or organization should be seated at the same table. If multiple licensure fields are represented at a table (i.e.; math, music, etc.), the notes should reflect discussion of each specific licensure area.

Discussion Questions

1. What is the role of reading/reading instruction for teachers in this licensure area?

The role is to continue to assist students to develop their reading ability, specifically focusing on the reading needs of a specific content area.

1. How are teachers in this licensure area currently being prepared in reading/reading instruction?

Most secondary and K-12 programs have one course in content area reading.

1. How will the proposed standards impact the licensure area in general?
2. How will the proposed standards impact these teachers in the area of reading?
3. Will the proposed standards better prepare teachers in this licensure area - in general? In reading?
4. What are the strengths and benefits of the proposed standards? BE SPECIFIC!

The proposed standards are careful and specific and clear.

1. What suggestions do you have for improving the proposed standards? BE SPECIFIC!

The proposed standards are impractically specific and elaborated. There are 44 new reading content standards proposed. There are only 47 content standards in the original licensure code for English language arts and literature (and those including reading). In the original standards, there are only 8 standards for literature and only 4 for writing. The few standards in those areas do not mean that teaching literature and writing are not complex, not capable of elaboration. It means that the licensure standards represent what can be done well and still done feasibly in an undergraduate program. A related problem is that the sheer scope of the proposed reading standards means that training in teaching English language arts becomes primarily training in reading, and everything else, literature and writing, becomes relatively insignificant. That is not an acceptable emphasis, nor is it a good education for English teachers. And, consequently, it is difficult to support the proposal that a course in reading be added to students' programs; if that means a reduction in the courses in English that future English teachers must take. There is surely a way of integrating content standards into existing courses (which may have to be reduced anyway).

Other Feedback

If there are any areas that you would like to comment on but are not addressed by the questions above, please note these areas on the electronic feedback form. Also, some stakeholder groups and organizations have chosen to provide a more formal response to the proposed rule language. If you have a written statement, please make a note in this section to refer the task force to the supplemental information.

READING STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK

Peg Ballard and Maureen Prenn

(representing MACTE and Minnesota State University, Mankato)

Please identify your area of targeted feedback:

___  Early Childhood & Elementary Licensure       

            ___  Content-Specific Licensure: ___________________________________

            _X__  Endorsements (Teacher of Reading & Reading Leader)

In your table group, please discuss each of the questions below. One person at each table will be designated to record notes on the laptop provided. To the extent possible, participants representing the same stakeholder group or organization should be seated at the same table. If multiple licensure fields are represented at a table (i.e.; math, music, etc.), the notes should reflect discussion of each specific licensure area.

Discussion Questions

1. What is the role of reading/reading instruction for teachers in this licensure area?

These licensure fields are intended to enhance teachers' skills in working with individual readers and groups of readers as well as providing leadership for professional development and curriculum implementation for other teachers.

1. How are teachers in this licensure area currently being prepared in reading/reading instruction?

Reading Teachers are being prepared with a 15 to 19 credit graduate level program.

1. How will the proposed standards impact the licensure area in general?

It will improve it in that it will allow programs to be more specific in focus. Currently, the standards for Reading teacher seem to blend some of the Reading leader competencies into the Reading teacher responsibilities. Additionally, the Reading teacher does not have enough content to fully prepare someone to be a Reading leader. The new license will clarify this problem.

1. How will the proposed standards impact these teachers in the area of reading?
2. Will the proposed standards better prepare teachers in this licensure area - in general? In reading?
3. What are the strengths and benefits of the proposed standards? BE SPECIFIC!

The proposed structure delineates the two levels of advanced licensure in reading. Professional development and other responsibilities associated with district level activities have been moved from the Reading teacher to the Reading leader. The Reading leader standards appropriately focus on district level responsibilities, adult learners, and broader policy issues.

1. What suggestions do you have for improving the proposed standards? BE SPECIFIC!

No improvements suggested.

Other Feedback

If there are any areas that you would like to comment on but are not addressed by the questions above, please note these areas on the electronic feedback form. Also, some stakeholder groups and organizations have chosen to provide a more formal response to the proposed rule language. If you have a written statement, please make a note in this section to refer the task force to the supplemental information.