Attachment.aspx 3

Leading on Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities in Teacher
Preparation Across the University of North Carolina System
Beth Ann Bryan
Martha Hougen
Karen Nelson
February 14, 2018
The University of North Carolina System
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

of 44
FOREWORD
here may be no singular task more important for the future of our state and nation than ensuring
our P-12 education System is preparing our young people to succeed in a rapidly changing world.
Our children’s health, prosperity, and happiness depend on the quality of education they receive
in their formative years.
Right now, too many of our students lack access to the educational opportunities they deserve. As a
nation and as a state, we’ve made some gains, particularly in math. But our limited progress has not
kept pace with the dramatic shift in the level of education and skills increasingly necessary for economic
success.
Effective teachers are the foundation upon which school improvement efforts rest. The success of
recent state-level reforms and investments designed to boost third-grade literacy will depend in large
part on the quality of the teachers charged with implementing them. In order to improve our P-12
schools, then, we must recruit and prepare more high-quality teachers to serve in those schools,
especially those that serve our neediest students.
This is a task—recruiting and preparing great teachers—that the University of North Carolina System
knows well. As the state’s largest source of public school teachers, we are proud of our role supporting
North Carolina’s schools.
Teacher preparation is a core part of our System’s identity. Many of our institutions were founded over
the past two centuries for the purpose of teacher preparation. And while our institutions’ missions have
expanded since those early days, our focus on educator preparation remains paramount. But, as a public
university System, we have a responsibility to do more. We must take greater ownership of our role in
public school improvement.
Teaching is a high-skill, high-stakes job. We must treat it as such, recruiting talented teacher candidates
and enabling them to succeed by providing an education that stresses evidence-based strategies and
T
Proficiency rates are still anemic, and stubborn achievement
gaps have not narrowed enough. Not only are we not educating
our students to the level they need now, but we are falling far
short of the skills, knowledge and readiness they will need in the
years to come.
I’ve dedicated my life in public service to changing this
landscape, and I know it is no easy undertaking. But one key to
educational improvement is clear: a high-quality P-12 education
depends on high-quality P-12 teachers.
“…a high-quality P-12
education depends
on high-quality P-12
teachers.”

of 44
interventions. That education should also include plenty of opportunities to learn and hone their craft
early-on through meaningful student teaching experiences.
To make good on that promise, we must identify areas of excellence in teacher education, the obstacles
and challenges our educator preparation programs face, and the opportunities for improvement. With
generous support from the Belk Foundation, I commissioned a group of experts in early literacy
instruction to take a first look at the undergraduate teacher education programs across the University of
North Carolina System.
The review allows us to take stock of where we are, offering a set of concrete lessons,
recommendations, and directions for future research to guide our efforts to align teacher preparation
with state content standards and evidence-based practices.
I look forward to working with institutional and state leaders to chart the path forward. Promising action
is already underway. At the state level, for example, this summer’s Senate Bill 599 promises to increase
accountability, introduce new providers and new ideas into the educator preparation space, and expand
the availability of information crucial to coordinating our response to public school needs.
Improving teacher quality will require a statewide effort, but with this report, the University of North
Carolina System is taking an important step toward amplifying our role in improving North Carolina’s
public schools.
Margaret Spellings
President, The University of North Carolina System
February 2018
Teaching is a high-skill, high-stakes job. We must treat it as such,
recruiting talented teacher candidates and enabling them
to succeed by providing an education that stresses
evidence-based strategies and interventions.

of 44
Leading on Literacy: Challenges and Opportunities in
Teacher Preparation Across the University of North Carolina System
| February 2018 |
CONTENT
UNC System Sets the Context 7
Overview 11
Focus and Methodology 12
Limitations of Review 14
Key Findings 15
Relationships with districts and alignment of instruction 15
Field experiences 16
Utilization of the North Carolina Standard Course of Study 17
Praxis Core test and entrance requirements 19
Program requirements 18
Utilization of data 20
Literacy curriculum 20
Questions for Consideration by the Educator Preparation Programs 23
Recommendations for the UNC System Office 24
Next Steps 28
Appendices
A. Syllabi Review Criteria 31
B. Educator Preparation Programs Visited 33
C. State Data Snapshot of NAEP 4th
-grade reading in North Carolina 34
D. State Data Snapshot of NAEP 8th
-grade reading in North Carolina 35
E. The UNC System Licensure Exam Pass Rate Data (2014-15) 36
F. GPA and SAT Comparisons: Education vs. Non-Education Majors 37
G. Additional References 38
About the Reviewers 44

of 44
THE UNC SYSTEM OFFICE SETS THE CONTEXT
Strong public schools are key to North Carolina’s continued economic growth. Students who graduate
from high school prepared to succeed in and complete postsecondary education earn more over the
course of their careers, are less likely to be unemployed, and have a much better chance of moving up
the economic ladder. The path to opportunity starts in the early grades. Indeed, research suggests that a
student’s ability to read on grade level by the end of the 3rd
grade is a primary predictor of future
success. Students who are not proficient in reading by the end of third grade are four times more likely
to drop out of high school than those who are proficient readers. Poor fourth graders who do not read
on grade level are fully six times as likely to drop out.1
Fortunately, North Carolina has made some gains in reading and math over the past decade. Fourth-
grade reading proficiency rates on the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) were
above the national average and significantly better than they were 10 years earlier. Math scores for
both fourth and eighth graders have also increased since 2000.
Still, the latest NAEP results show that less than 40 percent of fourth graders read on grade level. By 8th
grade, that proportion drops to 30 percent (see Appendices C, D, and E). And though high school
graduation rates have improved, the latest state assessment results show that less than half of all
students in grades three through eight are considered “on track” for college and career readiness (CCR)
in reading or math. Just 35 percent demonstrated CCR in both subjects.2
ACT results show that 18
percent of North Carolina test-takers met college-ready benchmarks in English, reading, math, and
science in 2017; nearly half failed to meet college-ready benchmarks in any of the four subjects.3
The state also faces stubborn achievement gaps. On the 2015 NAEP, one-quarter of disadvantaged
North Carolina fourth graders (those who receive free or reduced price lunch) were proficient in reading
compared to nearly 60 percent of their more affluent peers. Black and Hispanic students lag behind
white peers at every grade level. Among 8th
graders, just 13 percent of African American students and 21
percent of Hispanic students were proficient in reading.4
Demographic projections indicate that North
Carolina’s public schools will grow more diverse in the coming years. As the demographics of North
1
Hernandez, Donald. “Double Jeopardy: How Third Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School
Graduation,” Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2012, http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-DoubleJeopardy-2012-
Full.pdf.
2
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. “2016-17 Performance and Growth of North Carolina Public
Schools, Executive Summary,” September 2017,
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/reporting/2017/documentation/exsumm17.pdf.
3
ACT. “The Condition of College and Career Readiness 2017: North Carolina Key Findings,”
https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/cccr2017/North-Carolina-CCCR-2017-Final.pdf.
4
National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2015: State
Snapshot for North Carolina.

of 44
Carolina’s public schools change, these achievement gaps will have an increasing impact on the state’s
competitiveness.
To keep pace with a growing state and dynamic economy, North Carolina must do better. We must
educate more students to a higher level than ever before. That means recruiting and preparing more
teachers who are equipped to succeed in today’s classrooms. To be sure, quality teaching is just one
influence on student achievement; family income, zip code, race and ethnicity, and other factors are
strongly related to student success. But research shows that great teaching matters. While there is
substantial debate about how best to measure teacher effectiveness, a number of rigorous studies have
shown that effective teachers can have a positive effect on student achievement (and success later in
life) that goes beyond student demographics—what researchers call “value-added.”5
Indeed, access to
quality teaching can be trajectory-changing. A study of one million students found that those assigned to
teachers with a track record of producing student learning gains were more likely to enroll in college and
had higher earnings as adults.6
The key question facing policymakers is how to recruit and prepare more teacher candidates who have a
positive impact on student learning and development. While acknowledging the importance of
improvements in teacher compensation and working conditions as well as the value of alternative
pathways into teaching, policymakers and practitioners have identified university-based teacher
preparation as a key lever to prepare effective educators. Many states, including North Carolina, have
implemented policies and initiatives designed to enhance and improve teacher education, including new
programs to attract promising candidates to education preparation programs and efforts to ensure that
coursework reflects rigorous, proven evidence on effective instructional practice.
The alignment between teacher preparation in early literacy and existing research has received
considerable attention. In 2000, the blue-ribbon National Reading Panel (NRP)—created by Congress to
“assess the status of research-based knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to
teaching children to read”—identified five essential components of reading: phonemic awareness,
5
Sanders, William L., S. Paul Wright, and Sandra P. Horn. "Teacher and classroom context effects on student
achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation." Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11, no. 1 (1997):
57-67; Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain. "Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement." Econometrica 73, no. 2 (2005): 417-458; Helen F. Ladd, “Teacher Effects: What Do We Know?” in
Greg DUNCan and James Spillane, eds, Teacher Quality: Broadening and Deepening the Debate. Multidisciplinary
Program in Education Sciences, Northwestern University (2008): 3-26.; C. Kirabo Jackson, Jonah E. Rockoff, and
Douglas O. Staiger. “Teacher Effects and Teacher-Related Policies,” Working Paper (2014):
https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jrockoff/papers/Jackson_Rockoff_Staiger_2014.pdf.
6
Chetty, Raj, John N. Friedman, and Jonah E. Rockoff. "Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added
and student outcomes in adulthood." The American Economic Review 104, no. 9 (2014): 2633-2679.

of 44
phonics, oral reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.7
Subsequent research on reading
instruction has served to reinforce the NRP’s main findings, and states and institutions have worked to
align teacher preparation programs with those findings (see Appendix G for a list of relevant reading
research).
For instance, the higher education system in Mississippi has conducted two in-depth studies of the
extent to which teacher preparation coursework and field experiences reflect the NRP’s five essential
components. The latest study found that educator preparation programs in the state had made progress
in focusing coursework on the five essential components of reading.8
In 2011, the Florida Department of
Education revised its Reading Endorsement, which teachers can earn by completing relevant
coursework, to ensure that the required competencies and courses reflect research published since
2000.9
The Louisiana Department of Education has partnered with nonprofit Teacher Prep Inspection-US
(TPI-US) to review educator preparation programs on a number of dimensions, including the extent to
which coursework covers evidence-based reading instruction.10
Many individual universities—and
groups of universities—have undertaken similar reviews in response to new demands.
North Carolina’s educator preparation programs are also operating in an era of increasing expectations.
This past year, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation (S.B. 599) that will clarify the
expectations for teacher preparation program approval and review and a set of reforms related to
licensure policy. The law sets out new criteria for the licensing of educator preparation programs,
placing greater emphasis on equipping teachers with evidence-based practices. The law also includes
new accountability measures for all educator preparation programs licensed in North Carolina and
creates space for organizations other than universities to offer teacher preparation programs,
conditional on review and approval by a new Professional Educator Preparation and Standards
Commission.
7
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching
children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications
for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (2000: NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
8
See Barksdale Reading Institute and Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning. “2014-15 Study of Mississippi
Teacher Preparation for Early-Literacy Instruction.” (2016): http://msreads.org/files/2016/03/ExSumm-2014-15-
Study-of-Teacher-Preparation-for-Early-Literacy-Instruction.EXEC-SUMMARY.pdf.
9
Florida Department of Education. “Reading Endorsement.” (2011):
http://www.fldoe.org/academics/standards/just-read-fl/reading-endorsement.stml.
10
Louisiana Department of Education. “Teacher Preparation On-site Review Brief.” 2017:
https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/teaching/teacher-preparation-onsite-review-
brief_january-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=6.

of 44
As the largest producer of public school teachers in the state, the University of North Carolina System
has an opportunity and an obligation to exceed these new standards and compete with new providers.
Thirty-seven percent of the teachers in North Carolina’s public schools are graduates of the UNC System;
among beginning teachers (those with two or fewer years of experience), UNC System graduates make
up 43 percent of the teaching corps. Research indicates that, overall, teachers prepared at UNC System
institutions generally have higher value-added estimates, earn higher evaluation ratings, and stay in the
classroom longer than teachers prepared through most other routes.11
Data from 2015 show that about
8 out of 10 UNC System graduates met or exceeded targets for expected student growth.12
There is room for improvement, however, particularly in reading. A 2015 study found that none of the
15 teacher preparation programs in the UNC System had a positive, statistically significant effect on
elementary reading achievement when compared to teachers prepared via other routes. Meanwhile,
the UNC System’s colleges of education have experienced significant declines in enrollment, mirroring a
nationwide trend. Between 2010 and 2015 alone, enrollments in bachelor’s and master’s degree
programs in education in the UNC System dropped 30 percent (see Appendix B). Those numbers
rebounded some in 2016, but are still far below previous levels.
The University of North Carolina System’s Board of Governors (Board) has recognized the need for
improvement in teacher education. In 2015, a Board subcommittee made a series of recommendations,
including the creation of a public Educator Quality Dashboard, closer alignment between colleges of
education and colleges of arts and sciences, a focus on high quality clinical experiences, and aligned
instructional support for beginning teachers.13
Considerable progress has been made on these
recommendations, but there is more work to be done, especially in light of new legislation, changing
demographics, and increasing expectations.
In response, UNC System President Margaret Spellings commissioned this initial review of curriculum
and practice at the 14 undergraduate teacher preparation programs that license bachelor’s degree
11
Research suggests that teachers who enter through Teach for America perform better than UNC-trained
teachers, as do visiting international teachers in some subjects. See Bastian, Kevin and Qi W. Xing. “Staffing North
Carolina’s Classrooms: Evidence Connecting Teacher Preparation to Teacher Outcomes.” Education Policy Initiative
at Carolina (EPIC) (2015): https://publicpolicy.UNC.edu/files/2015/07/Staffing_North-
Carolinas_Classrooms_Evidence-Connecting_Teacher-Preparation_to_Teacher-Outcomes_April-2016.pdf.
12
See UNC Educator Quality Dashboard. “Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS).”
http://eqdashboard.northcarolina.edu/performance-employment/.
13
University of North Carolina Board of Governors. “Recommendations from the UNC Board of Governors
Subcommittee on Teacher and School Leader Quality.” (2015): http://eqdashboard.northcarolina.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/BOG-Recommendations-for-Teacher-and-School-Leader-Quality.pdf.

of 44
recipients to teach in elementary and middle schools, with a particular focus on how those programs
prepare candidates to teach reading.14
The review, made possible by a grant from the Belk Foundation,
was conducted over the summer and fall of 2017, and involved on-site visits and stakeholder interviews
by reviewers with expertise in policy, literacy, and educator preparation. The goal was to better
understand the current work and contributions of our teacher preparation programs, the challenges
they face, and the models of excellence in our System. How do UNC System educator preparation
programs incorporate the latest research and best practices from teacher quality efforts around the
country? What evidence-based approaches have programs adopted to prepare pre-service teachers how
to teach reading? How well are those approaches aligned with state content standards?
This initial review provides insight into the areas that require a more detailed look at content and
practice, the opportunities for institutions to learn from one another, and recommendations for
institutional and System-level leaders to consider.
OVERVIEW
The University of North Carolina System (UNC) plays a significant role in ensuring PK–12 student
achievement and strives to prepare educators to effectively teach diverse populations of students. The
fourteen undergraduate Educator Preparation Programs (EPPs) in the System can be leaders in efforts to
prepare teachers to be more successful as they focus on continuous improvement of their programs,
including the following elements:
• incorporation of robust, detailed knowledge of what constitutes evidence-based practice;
• integration of evidence-based practices and strategies into all aspects of educator preparation;
• collaboration with district and state partners that is formal, thoughtful, and routine;
• provision of ample, deliberate, and assessed field experiences in schools;
• preparation that ensures candidates are fully conversant with the state content standards and
know how to incorporate them into their classroom practices;
• utilization of expertise of other departments and external entities and resources to boost the
effectiveness of the EPPs; and
• continuous review and revision of EPP models to improve the preparation of teachers.15
14
UNC-Chapel Hill’s School of Education no longer offers bachelor’s degrees leading to licensure in elementary or
middle grades. The UNC Baccalaureate of Education in Science and Teaching (BEST) allows mathematics,
chemistry, biology, physics and astronomy, and geological science majors to earn a teaching license for secondary
grades. Undergraduate music majors can get licensed to teach music.
15
For more information on best practice in effective educator preparation programs, see: Cochran-Smith, Marilyn
& Zeichner, K. (Eds.). Studying Teacher Education: The report of the AERA Panel on research and teacher education
(2009). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Ball, Deborah & Forzani, F. M. “Building a common core for
learning to teach and connecting professional learning to practice.” American Educator, 35(2), 17-21,38-39 (2011,
Summer); Benedict, A., Holdheide, L., Brownell, M., Foley, A. M. Learning to teach: Practice-based preparation in

of 44
FOCUS
The reviewers were tasked with visiting each of the fourteen UNC System institutions that offer an
undergraduate degree leading to teacher licensure in elementary or middle grades to interview deans
and their leadership teams, faculty, and teacher candidates. The reviewers’ goals were to gather
information on broad themes—areas of excellence within the System, integration of state standards
into preparation, the challenges that leaders, faculty and candidates face, and the opportunities for
System support—and more specific questions related to literacy coursework. The System Office plans to
use the results of the review to conduct further research and design support for the programs to impact
effective teaching and learning in order to improve K-12 student outcomes. The review focused upon
the following areas:
• program highlights, program cohesiveness, and course alignment
• requirements for program admission
• candidate readiness to teach
• relationships with school districts
• alignment with state content standards
• use of accountability data to inform continuous improvement efforts
• research-based curriculum in literacy.
METHODOLOGY
Reviewers sought to gather information from each EPP on the following topics in order to create a
“snapshot” of the work of the EPPs, highlighting what the schools are doing well and determining the
challenges they encounter. The review was designed as an overall look at the programs across the
Teacher education. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research and University of Florida (2016).
http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Learning_To_Teach.pdf; Deans for Impact. Building
Blocks Framework. Austin, TX: Deans for Impact (ND); Robinson, S., Nemr, G., Nicoll-Senft, J., Spear-Swerling, L.,
Tralli, R. Developing quality fieldwork experiences for teacher candidates: A planning guide for educator
preparation programs and district partners. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research and the University
of Florida (2017).

of 44
System, identifying areas that could be considered for further study, and is not intended to make
definitive judgments about any one program. Through personal visits to institutions and discussions with
deans, leadership teams, faculty, and teacher candidates, the reviewers asked questions focused on the
following (see Appendix A):
• integration of evidence-based approaches and models to address the needs of each student,
particularly in literacy instruction
• exemplary practices identified by each EPP
• concerns, needs, issues, and barriers identified by the universities
• supports the UNC System office can provide to strengthen the efforts of the EPPs
• partnerships that exist between the university and its school district partners, including a focus
on
o field experience opportunities afforded candidates
o alignment of district and university expectations for field experiences
o extent of ongoing collaboration and communication with local district leaders
o results of data measuring the effectiveness of recent graduates
• integration and assessment of state content standards in the EPPs
• practices and content of early childhood education, special education, elementary, and
secondary programs
• extent of collaboration between other departments associated with teacher preparation, e.g.,
psychology (cognitive science, science of reading), mathematics, science, English
• leveraging of resources with other entities to support the work of educator preparation (e.g., IES
grants, state ESSA funding, equity grants, and/or title 1)
• methods to support and encourage EPPs to continuously review and revise, as needed, their
programs to prepare teachers.
The reviewers visited each of the fourteen schools of education between August and mid-October of
2017.
Each visit was approximately three hours long and involved a conversation with leadership of each
program, a separate discussion with faculty chosen by leadership, and then a final dialogue with current
candidates in the program. The number of individuals in each meeting varied. Some leadership meetings
were small with just the dean and a few key individuals. Others were much larger. The same was true of
the faculty meetings and the candidate meetings.
The reviewers confirmed that the report would be generic and would not identify any individuals or
schools, but rather would look at trends and key issues discussed.
Overall, the reviewers found interviewees to be open, straightforward, and forthcoming with
descriptions of their programs, goals, concerns, and issues. All visits went smoothly, and program
leadership was very helpful with all aspects of the visit.

of 44
Additionally, the reviewers received most of the documents requested from most EPPs. Some provided
additional information and data about their program.
LIMITATIONS OF REVIEW
This review is intended to be a snapshot of the EPPs, highlighting areas that could be considered for
further study. The following limitations to the review preclude making any definitive judgments about
any one program. Likewise, because literacy was a focus of this review, the lessons may not be
generalizable to other programs at the institution that were not reviewed. However, the information
obtained does suggest areas to explore further that are likely relevant to the vast majority of programs.
Those areas are outlined in the recommendations.
The limitations of the interview process and syllabi review are discussed below.
Interviews:
1. Each institution selected persons for the reviewers to interview based upon roles requested by
the UNC System Office staff. This typically included representatives from the leadership team
(e.g., dean and other administrators), faculty, and candidates. Consequently, it is likely that the
criteria used to select the personnel to be interviewed varied across institutions.
2. The number of persons interviewed differed at each site. One university provided fewer than 10
people to be interviewed; others had more than 30.
3. The representation of those interviewed was not consistent across the sites. Some institutions
provided faculty and candidates from elementary and secondary programs, STEM programs, and
special education programs; others provided less comprehensive representation.
4. Candidates ranged from freshmen to seniors, and candidates’ knowledge and perceptions likely
varied with their level of experience.
5. For the most part, each group was interviewed for approximately the same length of time.
Therefore, the larger groups had fewer opportunities for all the people to participate in the
conversation.

of 44
Syllabi Review:
Syllabi from relevant EPP courses were solicited and reviewed. Syllabi reflect the intended content
of a course, not how the course is implemented; both are important sources of information about
what candidates experience in a course. The actual curriculum that is delivered was ascertained in
part by interviews with faculty and candidates, although this review could not determine what was
actually taught or how material was taught in each course. It is acknowledged that some concepts
not included on the syllabus may have been taught, whereas concepts included on the syllabus may
not have been covered. In addition:
1. Not all course materials were available for review. Some assignments, rubrics, and readings
were posted on the school’s learning management System (e.g., COURSE PACK, Blackboard) and
were not accessible to the reviewers.
2. The reviewers were familiar with most but not all of the texts and suggested readings.
3. Tests, quizzes, and samples of assignments submitted were not available.
4. Feedback provided to candidates and documentation of their progress during their field
experiences were not available for review.
5. Teaching by faculty or candidates was not observed. Thus, the reviewers were not able to
discern classroom activities, modeling by the instructor, practice opportunities that may have
been provided, or how the candidates implemented what they had been taught.
KEY FINDINGS
1. Relationships with districts and alignment of instruction
One key topic of inquiry with each EPP was the level of connection with local school districts. Most
institutions reported they had close relationships with surrounding districts, and that these districts
were the recipients of the majority of their graduates, so it benefitted both parties to work together.
However, the quality and structure of the relationships seemed to vary greatly. Some deans and
faculty said they had regularly scheduled meetings with either superintendents or key officials in the
district and had carefully crafted agendas at those meetings. Others connected as needed. Most
described highly amicable relationships. Some colleges had faculty out in the schools on a regular
basis, and a few colleges brought current public school teachers in as adjunct instructors.
Superintendents and principals were brought in to present to classes in some EPPs. Many of the
schools of education felt that their instruction was very much in line with the approaches
implemented in the nearby districts and, in fact, their partnerships focused on that synchronization.
However, others said that their colleges taught specific strategies, practices, and approaches, but
that when their candidates went into the local schools, they saw different practices, and the
candidates were asked to implement the approach of the school, not what they had been taught by
the EPP. In some instances, both faculty and candidates reported a disconnect between what is

of 44
taught in the EPP and the alignment with the curricula and practice of the LEAs. Some faculty raised
questions as to whether what is expected in local districts and by state standards is appropriate.
2. Field experiences
The structure of the review did not allow for a systematic study of field experiences. However, both
faculty and candidates shared information and opinions about this topic. Some education schools
begin field experiences in the freshman year while other colleges do not begin them until later.
Candidates preparing to teach in secondary schools reported a later start getting into schools. One
of the items mentioned most often by candidates is the need for earlier and more frequent field
experiences. Many candidates commented they would better understand their coursework and how
it applies if they had more field experiences. Some colleges are incorporating various types of field
experiences much earlier, including focused observations, supervised tutoring of individual students,
and semester-long full-time co-teaching.
The descriptions of field experiences were highly variable. The comments of some faculty suggested
that districts working with the colleges varied greatly in what they were willing to do to support
these field experiences. Faculty reported that some districts were willing to have candidates early
and often while others reported difficulties with placements in the field. Some interviewees
reported that candidates were carefully placed with both the college and the district involved in
selecting the most appropriate classroom with a highly effective teacher and ongoing support. Other
interviewees commented that placements were not always with effective teachers. Some faculty
observed that the candidates provided quality instruction to the students, but the candidates did
not always benefit from an effective mentor teacher.
The message was loud and clear from many candidates: “More clinical hours starting earlier!”
Many faculty and leadership also saw this need.
In addition to supervised field experiences, most institutions encouraged candidates be involved in
the community working with PK-12 students. Some institutions embedded this requirement into the
coursework, and interviewees from a number of EPPs discussed at length the volunteer activities
their candidates performed in the community. The candidates, for example, could work with local
students and parents on a volunteer basis reading with children and helping parents assist with
homework. Some EPPs cited their affiliated lab schools as creating opportunities to provide more
field experiences for teaching candidates.
In summary, field experiences were provided by all programs and were valued by the candidates.
However, the reviewers did not have access to information to determine whether the experiences
had clear expectations that scaffold over time or if feedback that would promote candidate growth
over time was systematically provided. Most syllabi required candidates to observe the teacher,
help when they could, and make note of practices the teacher implemented, but the candidates did

of 44
not consistently report that they had explicit expectations about what to observe nor how to apply
what they observed to enhance their own practice.
3. Utilization of the North Carolina Standard Course of Study
The utilization, integration, and EPP curricular fidelity to the North Carolina Standard Course of
Study was discussed at all meetings. The North Carolina Standard Course of Study is the state-
mandated set of content standards that delineates what K-12 students should know and be able to
do in all grade levels and subjects. All teachers in all schools are expected to teach to these
standards.
It was apparent in most of the meetings that the actual nomenclature used for these content
standards varies widely within and across the EPPs. When asked about how they addressed “the
state standards,” many candidates seemed perplexed–some candidates know them as the Common
Core, while others know the name North Carolina Standard Course of Study. Most did have some
understanding of what was meant by "the state standards."
Leadership and faculty expressed that they include the state content standards in all courses and
throughout the work they do. In fact, some institutions have an actual course that teaches the state
content standards as a whole and how the standards should be utilized by teachers. There was clear
evidence that most institutions incorporate the state content standards into the lesson plan
templates that candidates are expected to utilize. When asked to elaborate on what they knew
about North Carolina state content standards, many candidates mentioned that after they created a
lesson plan, they would find the state standards that were addressed by the particular lesson. What
is less clear is whether most candidates are given a full and complete study of the state content
standards, what they cover, what is expected of teachers in covering these in a timely fashion, and
how to work from the standards in planning instruction and assessing student growth. Candidates
seemed much more comfortable with matching lesson plans to particular state standards. They
were less comfortable with explaining the body of standards, why they exist, and what is expected
of teachers and students.
Some interviewees said that content standards were addressed early in the freshman year and that
all work embeds standards and strategies to support and scaffold the standards. Some mentioned
creating a crosswalk of the standards with the objectives of their courses. Some faculty said they
have internal discussions around the standards and how to make sure the standards are covered
thoroughly.
Faculty also mentioned focusing on selected standards in-depth rather than covering the scope of
what is expected (quality vs. quantity). Some faculty emphasized that they simply "teach good
practice" rather than focus on the content standards. There was also the comment that the
"standards are such a mess they are unattainable." Faculty at other EPPs were less specific.
Candidates often had differing views. In schools where faculty seemed to be very focused on
carefully incorporating the standards, candidates were articulate about how they work with

of 44
standards and what they know about them. In other places, candidates were frank that there was
no broad instruction on standards and that they really were not that familiar with the standards.
Candidate comments indicated some faculty required candidates to integrate the standards in their
planning and teaching, while other candidates stated the standards were not a key part of their
coursework.
It seems that candidates knew where to find the standards and how to “check off” that a lesson plan
addressed them, but the candidates stated they were unsure how to integrate more than one
standard across lessons or how to assess student mastery of the standards.
Most of the syllabi contained long lists of standards, though few explicitly mentioned the North
Carolina Standard Course of Study. It was less clear that faculty determined specific objectives or
standards that candidates would master in each courses, and most candidates could not articulate
what standards were supported in the courses they took. In summary, the EPPs do not appear to
consistently integrate the North Carolina Standard Course of Study into the programs in meaningful
ways.
4. Praxis® Core tests and entrance requirements
A key concern mentioned at nearly every campus by leadership, faculty, and candidates alike was
Praxis Core tests. The Praxis Core Academic Skills for Educators are tests that measure the core
academic skills of teacher candidates in reading, writing, and math. Students who score below
certain levels on the SAT or ACT exams are required to take the Praxis exams prior to certification or,
in some cases, prior to entrance into a teacher education program. Some institutions require that
students pass Praxis Core exams before entering a teacher education program, usually in the
sophomore or junior year. Others require passing after coursework has begun but before
certification is possible. Many institutions expressed concern that a number of students arrive in
college unable to pass these tests of core academic skills, even on a second or third try.
The colleges expressed varied views on how to handle this issue, and a majority of EPPs asked for
support as they explore strategies to increase passage rates. Math was of particular concern. All
colleges have mechanisms in place to tutor and support students who are having difficulty. Some
utilize full courses in the area needed (e.g., reading, writing, math), while others rely on tutoring,
including using recent graduates as tutors. Some use online resources or special Saturday classes.
Regardless, interviewees at most institutions asked for assistance in identifying better ways to
support these students.
Most of the colleges agreed that passing Praxis Core tests ensured that teachers going into the field
had adequate reading, writing, and math skills.
Candidates at more than one college expressed a desire to have Praxis Core exams completed very
early once the student decided to go into teacher education. Candidates felt that taking and passing

of 44
the exam early was necessary so that it was clear the candidate had the necessary reading, writing,
and math skills to be certified and did not have to worry about the exams while juggling coursework
and field experiences. Additionally, one of the key points mentioned at a number of institutions by
both candidates and faculty/leadership is the cost to students for the various entrance and
certification exams. Some interviewees mentioned that fees for the exams were a significant burden
for them. The costs are higher for students who have to retake the exams or for students who want
multiple certifications. Several institutions and candidates mentioned this as a significant issue for a
number of their candidates and asked for a discussion of how to ameliorate these costs for certain
students.
5. Program requirements
Colleges of education have a number of required courses that all students must take. Many of those
courses are about theories of education, understanding issues of diversity and cultural and language
differences, or historical perspectives in education. Other coursework is more specific to actual
instruction and actual strategies for teaching reading, math, or writing or helping students with
difficulties. Colleges vary in what they require. Some colleges require more reading courses than
others. Some require more courses in theory or diversity. Candidates were very clear in almost every
interview that they needed more of the “practical” courses on teaching reading, math, writing, and
behavior management.
Most candidates said that even though they may have taken a special education course, they really
did not have practical coursework that gave them a collection of specific strategies for helping
students who were having difficulty. All groups of candidates were asked specifically about what
they had learned to do to teach a student who was having trouble with reading. In almost all
circumstances, candidates could not articulate specific strategies or practices they would use to help
such a student. Some candidates attempted to answer the question and said they would refer the
student to special education or rely on a digital reading program. However, given the data that
shows that many non-special education North Carolina students in the public schools have
difficulties learning to read, it is concerning that candidates do not seem to have a clear repertoire
of practices to use with those students. Candidates in Special Education seemed to have a better
understanding of how to scaffold instruction and how to choose various interventions for struggling
readers. However, the general inability of candidates, some of whom were already in student
teaching, to talk knowledgeably about interventions for readers having difficulty was a troubling
theme across all of the visits.
This issue leads to another observation throughout the visits. Colleges have multiple types of
programs and degrees available to candidates. One of those programs is a joint Special
Education/Regular Education degree, where candidates get a significant number of special
education courses.

of 44
Both faculty and candidates who had strong special education backgrounds were the most
knowledgeable on reading research and strategies and specific interventions for public school
students who are having difficulty.
One issue that came up in almost every meeting with candidates was the work that was done to
help them with behavior management in the classroom. Candidates expressed a need to have more
help on this topic and have that help earlier in their programs. Some schools relied on online
coursework to teach behavior management theory and practices. Students felt the online
coursework was not particularly helpful. This was an area where candidates said that field
experience, early and often, was one of the best ways to help with this issue. They requested more
coursework in behavior management as well.
6. Utilization of data
Several of the institutions mentioned their use of data for continuous improvement. At some
institutions, there was one individual who coordinated data, utilizing local sources as well as System
and state information. Other institutions have a group of faculty who work together to analyze
various data sources.
Some faculty were positive about the UNC System Educator Quality Dashboard, which provides
various types of data on candidate achievement and matriculation. Some called it “forward
thinking,” while others felt it was not helpful. Some mentioned the need to get more clarity from
the System Office on the Dashboard and said they would like to offer input to the System Office on
how it could be more helpful. Preparation programs mentioned the need to get accurate
information on graduates, where they are teaching, and how they are affecting student
achievement.
Educator preparation programs differ in the selection of instruments they use to teach candidates
how to obtain diagnostic and achievement data about K-12 student achievement. School districts
often use data from other types of instruments, so graduates may have differing, and perhaps
confusing, ideas of what constitutes good data for helping their students. Syllabi and interviews
provided little evidence that candidates were taught to use data to inform decisions about their
instruction.
7. Literacy curriculum
“[T]he work of the National Reading Panel challenges educators to consider the evidence of
effectiveness whenever they make decisions about the content and structure of reading
instruction programs. By operating on a “what works” basis, scientific evidence can help build a
foundation for instructional practice. Teachers can learn about and emphasize methods and
approaches that have worked well and caused reading improvement for large numbers of
children. Teachers can build their students’ skills efficiently and effectively, with greater results

of 44
than before. Most importantly, with targeted “what works“ instruction, the incidence of reading
success should increase dramatically.”16
Put Reading First, 3rd
Edition, 2006
In addition to the confidential interviews with deans, leadership teams, faculty, and pre-service
candidates at each site, the reviewers requested that EPPs share materials from courses focused on
literacy. Syllabi, course outlines, textbooks, and other assigned readings, assignments, and practice
opportunities were reviewed as thoroughly as possible from the materials provided. Approximately
85 syllabi that addressed literacy were reviewed.
Syllabi review findings:
a) The amount of time and number of courses allotted to literacy instruction was highly varied
across the institutions, including the number of required courses on literacy.
b) It was evident that most syllabi relied upon the textbook to determine topics of study for
each class. Often the text was inaccurate or lacked an in-depth discussion of the skills
students must learn, thus failing to provide candidates with knowledge of an effective
instructional scope and sequence and strategies to solve instructional problems.
c) The structure and content of the literacy courses were varied across the state. For example,
at some sites, it appeared that evidence-based strategies for teaching early decoding skills
varied from teaching phoneme-grapheme correspondence e.g., explicit instruction of letter
sounds and names (research-based); to using context and pictures to decode words (e.g.,
look at the picture and see what word would make sense, not an effective strategy for early
decoding).
d) In addition to—or instead of—relying on research about how best to teach reading, some
instructors required candidates to write their personal philosophies about how to teach
reading, equating what they “feel about reading” or how they learned to read as a valid way
to make instructional decisions.
e) Some assignments appeared to be irrelevant to teaching literacy, or at least not inclusive of
research-based practices. For example, some candidates spent class time constructing
alphabet books or writing their own children’s books. Such instructional decisions might add
to candidates’ course enjoyment or to a broader experience with literacy-related activities,
but they are not the most efficacious practices to enhance teaching skill or—ultimately—
student learning.
16
Armbruster, Bonnie B., Fran Lehr, and Jean Osborn. Put Reading First: Research Building Blocks for Teaching
Children to Read. 3rd
Edition. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy (2006): ii.

of 44
f) Most syllabi required outside reading. However, there was little to no guidance about how
to select appropriate research-based articles and websites.
g) Lesson plan rubrics were not available to review. It is suggested that lesson plan rubrics be
consistent across a program and include consideration of such things as differentiation of
instruction, progress monitoring of students, universal design for learning, and organizing
small-group instruction.
h) Several programs required candidates to read Put Reading First (NICHD, 2000). However, it
is not clear how much time was spent discussing its implications and why some instructional
practices are more effective than others.
i) Most programs teach a “balanced reading” approach to literacy instruction, although exactly
how that is defined or enacted is not clear. It is also not clear if all instructors understand
the concerns about this approach and that many of the practices that are taught are not, in
fact, based on rigorous evidence.
j) It is not clear that all instructors thoroughly address the five essential components of
reading instruction, particularly phonological and phonemic awareness; word analysis,
decoding, phonics, and morphology; how to effectively teach and assess vocabulary
development; and how to teach comprehension strategies that help students identify and
solve comprehension problems.
k) Instructional strategies based on research were mentioned in a cursory way, if at all, on
most syllabi. However, explicit instruction with modeling, Systematic instruction with
scaffolding, multiple opportunities for students to practice, corrective and reinforcing
feedback, and how to monitor ongoing student progress were mentioned in very few
courses, and those courses tended to be taught in the special education program. It is also
not clear if instructors modeled these practices in the classroom and that candidates had
opportunities to practice these important instructional skills.
l) Data-based decision making was referred to only a few times and only in special education
syllabi, yet this knowledge is crucial for all teachers.
m) Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), is defined by the North Carolina Department of
Public Instruction as “…a multi-tiered framework which promotes school improvement
through engaging, research-based academic and behavioral practices. NC MTSS employs a
Systems approach using data-driven problem-solving to maximize growth for all.”17
The role
of the teacher in MTSS implementation was referred to in two courses.
17
Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/integratedSystems/mtss/.

of 44
n) Candidates stated, and the syllabi confirmed, that most educator preparation programs do
not provide sufficient time on how to instruct struggling readers.
QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROGRAMS
• Is the literacy content of pre-service teacher training implemented as intended? Does the
Professional Educator Preparation and Standards Commission need to review expectations and
guidance? Are the standards for program approval rigorous enough to ensure that graduates are
equipped to effectively teach reading to students of all ability levels?
• Does the literacy course of study at each EPP provide candidates with the foundational skills and
knowledge required to deliver effective reading instruction in K–3, including how to monitor
student progress and adjust instruction to ensure all students master the requisite skills?
• What are the gaps or redundancies in the content and practice opportunities required by the
courses in a program (e.g., K–3 literacy courses)? How can ineffective activities be identified and
eliminated? Is there duplication of content and assignments that does not lead to increased
understanding of the essential elements?
• Has each EPP collaborated on determining the skills that they feel are most important for all
candidates to master? What are those practices that all candidates in all subjects should know
and be able to do on day one?
• Does each program provide sufficient experience in evaluating research and associated
recommendations to ensure they reflect best practices and evidence-based literacy research
and instructional strategies?
• How well are instructors modeling the most effective instructional strategies with their
candidates? Are faculty modeling strategies to increase student engagement, monitor progress,
and differentiate instruction?
• How are field experiences evaluated? What evidence documents pre-service teacher growth
over time?
• How does each institution determine how well candidates are prepared to teach struggling
students?

of 44
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE UNC SYSTEM
The UNC System is uniquely positioned to support the EPPs in their efforts toward continuous
improvement. During our visits, we heard myriad ideas about recommended actions that the System
could take to support EPPs, and we were able to discern several overarching areas on which the
educator preparation programs may want to focus their continuous improvement efforts. We suggest
several key recommendations be further explored. The ideas listed below are the ones that seem most
critical and most likely to significantly improve the ability of teachers to boost student achievement in
North Carolina.
1. Establish a key individual in the UNC System Office who serves as the liaison with the education
schools.
Faculty expressed appreciation for having someone appointed as their direct liaison—a person they
can contact personally. That person can inform the UNC System Office about what kinds of help and
support are needed by the educator preparation programs.18
The individual would facilitate
implementation of the recommendations below and support the schools in implementing strong
research-based support for their programs.
2. Address the challenges posed by the requirement that candidates must pass a series of
certification examinations.
Some students are unable to demonstrate, through the certification examinations, that they have
necessary reading, writing, and math skills. The colleges need assistance and support to ensure that
candidates are prepared to pass the Praxis Core tests.
• The UNC System Office can be the lever and convene a working group—including
superintendents, college leadership, faculty, candidates, and experts in interventions for older
students—to help colleges learn about and implement effective strategies for helping
candidates achieve the basic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics required to pass the
Core exams the first time they are taken. Some institutions, including those with many students
from disadvantaged backgrounds, do a better job than others of achieving high passage rates. It
is recommended that the System Office work with EPPs to consider policies that can help
students successfully pass the Praxis Core and ensure they can move seamlessly through the
program focused on the coursework and preparing for teacher certification.
• The working group could also look at identifying ways to ameliorate the cost of the various
credentialing exams for low-income candidates.
18
Catherine Truitt, former Assistant Vice President for Academic and University Programs at the UNC System
Office, occupied this role until October 2017. Truitt coordinated the campus visits and accompanied the reviewers
on several of them. In the period between the visits and the publication of this review, Truitt was hired to serve as
chancellor of Western Governors University-North Carolina. The System Office is currently in the process of hiring
a replacement.

of 44
3. Help colleges identify successful recruitment strategies for teacher candidates.
The UNC System Office can help institutions develop successful strategies to encourage more people
to consider education as a rewarding, respected career option. For example, some institutions
actively recruit high school students and use their own graduates in the recruiting efforts. The
System Office currently oversees two programs that can serve as effective recruiting tools and
learning opportunities: the Future Teachers of North Carolina program (which works with high
school students interested in teaching), and the North Carolina Teaching Fellows program (which
provides forgivable loans to teaching candidates at five EPPs). Depending on the program’s success,
the UNC Board of Governors might consider a request to the General Assembly to expand the
Teaching Fellows program to additional EPPs.
4. Assist the EPPs in incorporating the NC Standard Course of Study for K–12 students more visibly
into the work of teacher education candidates.
The North Carolina Standard Course of Study was not always well-understood by candidates.
Generally, candidates seemed to be able to make a lesson plan and identify a standard that related
to that lesson plan, but they had less understanding of the expectations of the standards as a whole
and how the standards should be addressed across the curriculum. The UNC System Office should
work with the colleges and with the Department of Public Instruction to identify the best ways to
ensure that all courses in the colleges of education deliberately integrate the expectations of what
K–12 students in North Carolina should know and be able to do. Working directly with willing
colleges on this topic could increase knowledge of what is expected at each grade level and how
teachers should manage covering the required standards in a given time period.
5. Consider aligning teacher education for kindergarten with the state standards.
Most colleges use a birth-through-kindergarten approach to early childhood education, and grades
K-6 for elementary degree programs, paralleling the North Carolina certification structure. However,
in practice, kindergarten instruction at the institutions seems to be more focused within the early
childhood curriculum rather than the elementary curriculum. The North Carolina Standard Course of
Study includes competencies for children in kindergarten, but the emphasis on kindergarten in the
EPPs is more closely aligned with early childhood than elementary instruction. This disconnect may
cause confusion for kindergarten teachers as they enter the public school setting. The North
Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) provides the following statement about the
standards: “The ELA Standards are based on research and evidence that describe the competencies
necessary for all students to become college and career ready by the end of high school, outlining a
vision of what it means to be a literate person in the 21st Century.”19
Because the early reading
research base is quite strong, North Carolina may want to emphasize alignment for kindergarten
teacher preparation with the state standards.
19
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. K-12 Standard, Curriculum, and Instruction: English Language
Arts. Available at: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/languagearts/.

of 44
6. Sponsor meetings to address concerns of the colleges and provide faculty with opportunities for
continued professional development.
Some examples of meeting foci include the following:
• provide opportunities to better understand and utilize the Educator Quality Dashboard. Some
institutions use the data regularly, and those strategies should be highlighted. Most institutions
indicated they would appreciate feedback from the System Office about the data they submit.
• edTPA, the state’s performance-based, subject-specific assessments for candidates, was the
subject of some confusion. Some colleges were further along in their implementation of edTPA
than others. Colleges were interested in having more clarification on edTPA and knowing more
about best practices in the implementation of edTPA.
• faculty teaching several courses a semester, supporting candidates in the field, and completing
other assignments associated with preparing pre-service teachers at times face challenges to
engage in related research or to keep up with research. Knowing the research is the first step;
teaching teachers to implement research-based knowledge and instructional strategies in
classrooms is a crucial and more difficult aspect of teacher education. Sponsored colloquia at
which recent research is presented and implications for classroom practice are explored could
support faculty in increasing their own knowledge about teaching candidates and also about
state initiatives such as MTSS, STEM, and the Literacy Initiative. The System Office could partner
with EPPs to facilitate and sponsor professional development from national and state experts in
the latest research and evidence-based instructional strategies, thus benefiting all schools of
education.
7. Help facilitate early, deliberate, scaffolded, and aligned field experiences.
EPPs are required to offer aligned field experiences to meet accreditation standards (Council for the
Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) Standard 2). The System Office could support these
efforts by working directly with institutions and superintendents in the state to encourage field
experiences as early as the freshman year and continued access to opportunities for high-quality
practice throughout the program. Candidates should have significantly increased opportunities to
work with students in the classroom, particularly students with difficulties, students with disabilities
and English language learners. In addition, the UNC System Office could convene colleges interested
in examining the practice opportunities available for their candidates and highlight those programs
that provide clinical experience early, often, and with quality.
Logistical issues often get in the way of making these experiences a reality. However, some
institutions have found ways to give candidates significant time in the schools. This was the greatest
plea from the candidates. They felt that actual classroom experience was the most valuable aspect
of their preparation program.

of 44
8. Work with EPPs to review all courses in each program, paying particular attention to the
sequencing and depth of literacy courses.
It is recommended that the System Office and the EPPs consider:
• working with the schools of education to help update teachers and faculty on evidence-based
practices within their discipline. Of particular benefit would be a focus on reading and math
strategies proven effective with K–12 students having difficulty. Very few of the syllabi for
reading courses provided candidates with a thorough knowledge of research-based instructional
strategies, data-based decision-making, how to monitor student progress, and how to provide
interventions when students struggle;
• working with willing colleges to align courses, address gaps, and reduce redundancies. Several of
the EPPs are working on this alignment now and could use support and share the results of their
efforts with other EPPs and school districts;
• engaging with selected national research centers that provide support to articulate coursework
and integrate research-based practices;
• encouraging more coursework in the details of teaching reading, math, and writing; intervention
strategies for struggling students; and the implementation of behavior management strategies.
Candidates are interested in more practical knowledge about strategies and approaches they
can use in the classroom;
• convening interested institutions and highlighting those that have clear strategies for
maximizing their special education components. Special education faculty and candidates who
were in the Special Education/Regular Education program at most institutions were cognizant of
evidence-based practices and, in particular, the practical knowledge candidates need to work
with K–12 students who are struggling. Encouraging more schools to develop dual special
education/regular education programs and encouraging their candidates to participate in these
programs would ensure teachers are better prepared to teach all students;
• integrating discussions into all courses about types and quality of research and how to choose
instructional methods and materials based on research;
• encouraging the colleges to agree on a limited number of skills that all teachers need to have
mastered by day one. To better teach students who may be struggling, schools could integrate
features of effective instruction into all their courses, modeled by instructors and practiced, with
feedback, in the classroom;
• helping all EPPs to incorporate coursework on assessment and integrating solid information on
assessment and testing across the EPP curriculum. Candidates will benefit from a thorough
knowledge of research on assessment, the different types of assessment (e.g., universal,
formative, summative, and state assessments for accountability) as well as methodological
concepts such as validity and reliability and effect sizes. The result will be that candidates are
ultimately better able to understand and provide data-driven instruction to their students. The
UNC System has the benefit of having some talented methodologists from various institutions
who can serve as resources to help design the critical components of this endeavor.

of 44
NEXT STEPS
1. Establish and immediately convene a collaborative leadership group made up of representatives
from EPPs to work with the System to address the recommendations and establish a vision for
desired outcomes. This group could also work with the System Office on many of the next steps.
2. Use the convening power of the System Office to provide support to the institutions, utilizing
national expertise on various topics addressed in the recommendations, particularly on
interventions for struggling students.
3. Provide a venue for schools to collaborate on implementation of edTPA, Praxis success, CAEP
requirements, and work with the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) on state initiatives,
particularly on how the North Carolina Course of Study is communicated to the candidates.
4. Convene deans to discuss increasing dual credential programs (particularly with Special
Education) and bolstering coursework for candidates that helps them work with students who
are struggling with reading, writing or math.
5. Examine new requirements from recently passed legislation and develop a strategy to support
institutions in meeting the requirements.
6. Increase collaboration with community colleges and local school districts to assist in recruiting
candidates and ensuring those candidates are prepared to pass the Praxis exams.
7. Establish future studies to examine areas not covered in this report such as mathematics
preparation, leadership preparation programs, implementation and evaluation of field
experiences, development of robust communications Systems with stakeholders, and other
areas of interest.
8. Ensure that EPPs integrate current research, such as that made available by the entities listed
below, into their programs, beginning with high priority areas such as early literacy instruction
and mathematics instruction.

of 44
9. Explore collaboration with state and national centers that assist state departments of education,
local education agencies, and institutions of higher education to improve their programs, such
as the ones listed below.
o Building RTI Capacity (https://buildingrti.utexas.org)
o Center for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR
Center, www.ceedar.org)
o Center on Response to Intervention (https://rti4success.org)
o Florida Center for Reading Research (www.fcrr.org)
o Institute of Education Sciences (https://ies.ed.gov)
o Meadows Center for Preventing Education Risk (www.meadowscenter.org)
o National Center on Intensive Intervention (https://intensiveintervention.org)
o National Center for Systemic Improvement (www.wested.org)
o National Implementation Research Network (https://nirn.fpg.UNC.edu)
o State Implementation and Scaling-Up of Evidence-Based Practices (SISEP)
(https://sisep.fpg.UNC.edu)

of 44
CONCLUSION
The University of North Carolina System has the benefit of multiple educator preparation programs and
many talented individuals who are putting forth great effort to ensure that the students of North
Carolina have teachers who can provide an effective and engaging education for all.
The challenges discussed in this report are not unique to North Carolina. Most states are in the process
of generating ongoing improvements in their teacher preparation programs, addressing many of the
issues identified in this review. With strong partnerships between the UNC System Office and interested
universities, North Carolina has the opportunity to lead the nation in improving teacher preparation and
student achievement.

of 44
Appendix A
Syllabi Review Criteria
The overarching focus was on determining the extent to which candidates develop the knowledge and
ability to implement effective reading instruction. The reviewer determined the extent to which the
following topics were studied and applied by the candidates:
A. An in-depth understanding of the essential components of reading acquisition
1. Phonological and phonemic awareness
2. Phonics and word analysis (morphology, syllable types)
3. Fluency
4. Vocabulary
5. Comprehension
B. An extensive exposure to evidence-based strategies to teach and assess progress in each
component of reading including the following features of effective instruction:
1. Explicit instruction with modeling
2. Systematic instruction with scaffolding
3. Multiple opportunities for practice and response
4. Immediate corrective feedback
5. Progress monitoring
C. Exposure of candidates to evidence-based research and instructional strategies
The conclusions were based on a careful examination of each syllabus including the following sections:
1. Description of course
2. Objectives or learner outcomes
3. Standards provided
a. North Carolina Standard Course of Study
b. Common Core state standards
c. Professional standards (CEC, IRA, IDA)
4. Extent to which evidence-based content and strategies were taught
a. No mention
b. Mentioned in readings, lecture, tests, or quizzes
c. Opportunities to practice with peers
d. Opportunities to practice with students
5. Opportunities for candidates to practice what they had been taught
a. College classroom assignments
b. Supervised small-group instruction
c. Supervised student teaching
d. Evidence of deliberate, aligned, and scaffolded practice
e. Supervision and feedback

of 44
6. Fieldwork experiences, including opportunities for candidates to practice what they were
learning and to receive feedback and follow-up
7. Extent to which state initiatives and priorities were addressed
a. North Carolina Standard Course of Study
b. Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS)
c. Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
8. Textbooks and assigned readings
9. Bibliography
a. Institute for Education Science (IES) guidelines
b. Materials from national centers (e.g., IRIS Center, Florida Center for Reading Research,
Meadows Center for Preventing Education Risk, National Center on Intensive
Intervention, National Center for Universal Design for Learning)
c. Current readings from research-based journals

of 44
Appendix B
Educator Preparation Programs Included in Review
Institution Bachelor’s Degrees
Awarded to Teacher
Education Program
Completers
(2016-2017)
Trend
(2011-12 to 2016-17)
Appalachian State 412 -29%
Elizabeth City State 18 -58%
East Carolina 371 -24%
Fayetteville State 35 -57%
North Carolina A&T 19 -69%
North Carolina Central 22 -66%
North Carolina State 156 -54%
UNC Asheville* 20 -51%
UNC Charlotte 230 -30%
UNC Greensboro 164 -57%
UNC Pembroke 62 -52%
UNC Wilmington 225 -24%
Western Carolina 138 -43%
Winston-Salem State 31 -31%
Total 1,903 -39%
Source: UNC System Office Strategic Plan Metrics (Critical Workforces: educator preparation
(bachelor’s degree completers only)).
Note: At the undergraduate level, there are a small number of post-baccalaureate certificates
awarded in teacher prep programs as well, and those are not included here.
UNC Asheville does not offer bachelor’s degree in education. However, UNCA’s Department of
Education offers a teacher licensure program that enables undergraduates to earn a teaching
license while they complete their bachelor’s in a major field of study.
UNC-Chapel Hill was not included because the School of Education no longer awards a bachelor’s
degree in education that licenses graduates to teach core subjects in elementary or middle grades
(the UNC BEST program allows undergraduates majoring in math and science to earn a license for
teaching grades 9-12; undergraduate Music majors can earn a license to be a music teacher).

of 44
Appendix C
State Snapshot of NAEP Fourth-Grade Reading Scores in North Carolina
Table 1. Overall Performance
Year Average Score
North Carolina 2015 226
Nation 2015 221
Table 2. North Carolina Achievement-Level Percentages and Average Score Results
Year % Below Basic % at Basic % Proficient % Advanced
2015 27 34 29 9
1998 42 31 21 6
Table 3. Student Group Results 2015
% of Students Avg. Score % at or
Above Basic
% at or Above
Proficient
% at Advanced
Race/Ethnicity
White 50 236 83 51 15
Black 25 214 60 23 3
Hispanic 18 212 61 23 2
Asian 3 242 84 59 20
American Indian 1 198 45 19 4
Two or more
races
3 228 76 47 9
Gender
Male 51 222 68 34 7
Female 49 230 77 43 12
Free/Reduced
Lunch
Eligible 60 215 62 25 4
Not eligible 39 242 88 59 18
Table 4. Score Gaps for Student Groups 2015
Student Group Gap in Average Scores
Black 22 pts. lower than white students
Hispanic 24 pts. lower than white students
Female 9 pts. higher than males
Free/reduced lUNCh 27 pts. lower than ineligible students
(Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP, various
years, 1998-2015 Reading Assessments)

of 44
Appendix D
State Snapshot of NAEP Eighth-Grade Reading Scores in North Carolina
Table 1. Overall Performance
Year Average Score
Nation 2015 264
Table 2. North Carolina Achievement-Level Percentages and Average Score Results
Year % Below Basic % at Basic % Proficient % Advanced
2015 28 41 27 3
1998 26 44 28 2
Table 3. Student Group Results 2015
% of Students Avg. Score % at or
Above Basic
% at or Above
Proficient
% at Advanced
Race/Ethnicity
White 52 271 81 40 5
Black 25 243 54 13 1
Hispanic 16 252 66 21 1
Asian 3 279 87 55 7
American Indian 1 250 56 27 4
Two or more
races
3 269 81 37 2
Gender
Male 51 254 66 24 2
Female 49 268 78 37 5
Free/Reduced
Lunch
Eligible 57 249 61 18 1
Not eligible 42 277 86 48 7
Table 4. Score Gaps for Student Groups 2015
Student Group Gap in Average Scores
Black 27 pts. lower than white students
Hispanic 19 pts. lower than white students
Female 14 pts. higher than males
Free/reduced lunch 28 pts. lower than ineligible students
(Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,
NAEP, various years, 1998-2015 Reading Assessments).

of 44
Appendix E
Licensure Exam Pass Rates 2014-2015
Campus Number Taking
Exam
Number Passing
Exam
Institution Pass Rate
Appalachian State University 350 322 92.0%
East Carolina University 314 258 82.2%
Elizabeth City State University 24 14 58.3%
Fayetteville State University 21 10 47.6%
NC A&T State University 49 48 98.0%
NC Central University 33 23 69.7%
NC State University 169 162 95.9%
UNC-Asheville 43 43 100.0%
UNC-Chapel Hill 96 95 99.0%
UNC-Charlotte 349 324 92.8%
UNC-Greensboro 184 153 83.2%
UNC-Wilmington 220 199 90.5%
Western Carolina University 131 105 80.2%
Winston-Salem State University 32 20 62.5%
Source: UNC System Educator Quality Dashboard.
Technical Note: These tables reflect data reported to the US Department of Education by the state of North
Carolina as per Title II of the Higher Education Act. These figures illustrate the percentage of students who passed
Praxis assessment(s) taken for initial certification or licensure in their field of preparation. These summary
assessment pass rates show the percentage of students who passed a particular assessment among all who took
the assessment. The pass rate data included in these tables present the data at an aggregate level.
92%
58%
82%
48%
98%
70%
96%
99% 100%
93%
83%
90%
80%
63%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
ASU ECSU ECU FSU NCA&T NCCU NCSU UNC-CH UNCA UNCC UNCG UNCW WCU WSSU
Chart Title

of 44
Appendix F
2014-2015 Academic Profile Comparisons: Education Majors and Non-Majors
4-Year Cumulative College GPA
Average SAT Score
Source: UNC System Educator Quality Dashboard.
Technical note: These figures reflect academic data on the UNC System education and non-education graduates obtained from
the UNC System’s Office of Institutional Research. UNC System education graduates are students enrolled in our 15 educator
preparation programs. UNC System non-education graduates include all other students enrolled in UNC System institutions.
3.4 3.4
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.4 3.4
3.4
3.5 3.5
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.2
3.2 3.2
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.0 3.0
3.2
3.3 3.2
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.2 3.2
3.4
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Education Non-Education
1064
1095
852
1042
845
926
948
1128
1250
1167
1037
1042
948
1116
1064
888
1100
1112
847
1041
869
914
872
1184
1292
1161
1047
1031
930
1127
1033
930
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Education Non-Education

of 44
Appendix G
Additional References
Note: References include rigorous research studies and syntheses on reading since 2000. It is not the totality of
research published on reading.
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Archer, A. & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford
Press.
Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to
intervention practices for elementary school reading: Executive Summary. (NCEE 2016-4000).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gove/ncee
Benedict, A., Foley, A., Holdheide, L., Brownell, M., Kamman, M. (2016). Learning to teach: A framework
for crafting high-quality, practice-based preparation. Gainesville, FL: CEEDAR Center.
www.ceedar.org
Birsh, J. (2011). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Blachowicz, C., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading comprehension: Strategies for independent
learners. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2001). Comprehension instruction: Research based best
practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Burns, M. S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. (1999). Starting out right: A guide to promote student
reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Cain, K., Compton, D., L. & Parrila, R. K. (2017). Theories of reading development. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Children’s Learning Institute at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.
(2009). Elements of understanding: Deeper instruction in reading and listening
comprehension. Creating mental images: Coaching to make it happen. Houston, TX: Texas
Education Agency and University of Texas System.
Children’s Learning Institute at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. (2009).
Elements of understanding: Deeper instruction in reading and listening comprehension. Making
connections: Coaching to make it happen. Houston, TX: Texas Education Agency and University
of Texas System.
Children’s Learning Institute at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. (2009).
Elements of understanding: Deeper instruction in reading and listening comprehension. Making
inferences and predictions: Coaching to make it happen. Houston, TX: Texas Education Agency
and University of Texas System.
Connor, C. M., Alberto, P. A., Compton, D. L., O’Connor, R. E. (2014). Improving reading outcomes
for students with or at risk for reading disabilities: A synthesis of the contributions from the
Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers (NCSER 2014-3000). Washington, DC: National
Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. http://ies.ed.gov/
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, “The CAEP Standards,”
http://www.ncate.org/standards/introduction.

of 44
Coyne, M., Chard, D., Zipoli, R., & Ruby, M. (2007). Effective strategies for teaching comprehension.
In M. Coyne, E. Kame’enui, & D. Carnine (Eds.), Effective strategies that accommodate diverse
learners (pp. 80–109). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Duke, N. K., & Carlisle, J. (2010). The development of comprehension. Handbook of Reading Research,
Vol. IV, pp. 199–228). New York: Routledge.
Duke, N. K. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 40–44.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension.
In A. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction. (pp. 205–
242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Dycha, D. (2012). Comprehension, Grades K-3. In Hougen, M. & Smartt, S. (Eds.).
Fundamentals of Literacy Instruction & Assessment, Pre-K-6. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Dynamic Measurement Group. (2010). Dynamic Indicators of basic early literacy skills NEXT (7th
ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for Development of Educational Achievement.
Ebbers, S., & Hougen, M. (2014). Academic vocabulary development: Meaningful, memorable, and
morphological. In Hougen, M. (Ed.). Fundamentals of literacy instruction & assessment (pp. 6-12).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Ehri, L. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for teaching. In R.
Stainthorp & P. Thomlinson (Eds.), Learning and teaching reading (pp. 7-28). London, England:
British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II.
Ehri, L. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme
(Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135-154). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ehri, L. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9,
167-188.
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory,
and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5-21.
Farstrup, A., & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L.,
Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016).
Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd
grade (NCEE
2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences. http://whatworks.ed.gov.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of
academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22(1), 27-
48.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading
competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3),
239-256.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., Tilly, W. D. (2009).
Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention in
the primary grades. NCEE 2009-4045. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to
students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-
320.
Gillon, G. T. (2018). Phonological awareness: From research to practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

of 44
Goldhaber, D., Krieg, J. M., Theobalk, R. (2016). Does the match matter? Exploring whether student
teaching experiences affect teacher effectiveness and attrition. CALDER Working Paper 149.
Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research.
Good, J. E., Lance, D. M., & Rainey, J. (2017 May). The use of direct spelling instruction for children with
language impairment. Communications Disorders Quarterly.
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Graves, M. R., Juel, C. & Graves, B. B. (2001). Teaching reading in the 21st
century (2nd
ed.). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Haager, D., Dimino, J. A., Windmueller, M. P. (2014). Interventions for reading success. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes Publishing.
Hasbrouck, J. E. & Tindal, G. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (Technical Report No. 1702).
Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
Hasbrouck, J. E. (2010). Educators as physicians: Using RTI data for effective decision making.
Wellesley Hills, MA: Gibson Hasbrouck & Associates.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance
understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Herrera, S., Truckenmiller, A. , Foorman, B. (2016). Summary of 20 years of research on the
effectiveness of adolescent literacy programs and practices. Washington DC: Institute of
Education Sciences.
Hibbing, A. N., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L., (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual
images to improve comprehension for middle school struggling readers. The Reading Teacher,
56, 758–771.
Hiebert, E. (2012). The Common Core State Standards and text complexity. In Hougen & Smartt, (Eds.).
Fundamentals of literacy instruction & assessment Pre-K-6. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Hitchcock, J., Dimino, J., Kurki, A., Wilkins, C., Gersten, R. (2011). The impact of collaborative
strategic reading on the reading comprehension of grade 5 students in linguistically diverse schools.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences. http://edlabs.ed.gov
Honig, B., Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2008). Teaching reading sourcebook. Novato, CA: Arena Press.
Hougen, M. & Smartt, S. (2012). Fundamentals of literacy and instruction Pre-K-6.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Hudson, R. F., Torgesen, J. K., Lane, H. B., & Turner, S. J. (2006). Predictors of decoding fluency:
Explaining individual differences in children. Unpublished manuscript.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2002). National assessment of educational progress: 2002 oral
reading study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDer Heyden, A. M. (Eds). (2016). Handbook of response to
intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered Systems of support. New York: Springer.
Kamil, M., Borman, G., Dole, J., Kral, C., Salinger, T., Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent
literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices. IES Practice Guide NCEE 2008-4027.
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
Katzir, T., Youngsuk, K., Wolf, M., O’Brien, B., Kennedy, B., & Lovett, M. (2006). Reading fluency: The
whole is more than the parts. Annals of Dyslexia, 56(1), 51-82.
Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

of 44
Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension
instruction (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Klinger, J., Vaughn, S., Boardman, A., Swanson, E. (2012). Now we get it! Boosting
comprehension with collaborative strategic reading. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., Dimino, J., Schumm, J. S., & Bryant, D. (2001). Collaborative
strategic reading. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
McGregor, T. (2007). Comprehension connections: Bridges to strategic reading. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Kuhn, M., & Schwanenflugel,P. J. (2006). Fluency-oriented reading instruction: A merging
of theory and practice. In K. A. Dougherty Stahl & M. C. McKenna (Eds.), Reading research at
work: Foundations of effective practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
Kuhn, M., & Stahl, S. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21.
Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal
questioning: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 283-296.
Mathes, P. G., Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C.
(2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the
skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148-182.
Moats, L. (2005). Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling, module 6. Digging
for meaning: Teaching text comprehension. Boston, MA: Sopris West.
Moats, L. C. (2010). The speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Morris, D., Trathen, W., Gill, T.., Schlagal, R., Ward, D., & Frye, E. (2017). Assessing reading rate
in the primary grades (1-3). Reading Psychology 38(7), 653-672.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of
the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH
Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Institute for Literacy. (2007). What content-area teachers should know about
adolescent literacy. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
National Institute for Literacy. (2006). Put reading first: The research building blocks of reading
instruction (3rd ed.). Jessup, MD: ED Pubs.
National Research CoUNCil. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council for Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common core state standards initiative: Preparing Americans students for college
and career. www.corestandards.org.
Neuhaus, G., E. & Swank, P. R. (2002). Understanding the relations between RAN letters subtest
components and word reading in first grade students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(2), 158-
174.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, “North Carolina Standard Course of Study,” available
at: http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/.
O’Connor, R. E. (2014). Teaching word recognition: Effective strategies for students with learning
difficulties. New York, NY: Guilford.

of 44
O’Connor, R. E., Bell, K. M., Harty, K. R., Larkin, L. K., Sackor, S., & Zigmond, N. (2002). Teaching reading
to poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94, 474-‐485.
O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K., & Bell, K. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten
through third grade: Changes in teaching and child outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38,
440-‐455.
Ogle, D. M. (1986). K–W–L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text.
The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570.
Osborn, J., & Lehr, F. (2003). A focus on fluency. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and
Learning.
Ouellette, M. & Chang, Rossi. (2017). Improvements in spelling lead to gains in reading speed.
Scientific Studies in Reading, v. 21, no. 4, p. 350-357.
Paris, S. G., & Stahl, S. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension and assessment. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension.
Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510-519.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. (2nd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a R&D program in reading
comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Rasinski, T. (2004). Assessing reading fluency. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.
Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C., & Lems, K. (Eds.). (2006). Fluency instruction: Research-based best
practices. New York, NY: Guilford.
Rosenshine, B. (2012, spring). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers
should know. American Educator.
Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can
be done about it. New York: Basic Books.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carrier, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D. Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J.
(2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd
grade: A practice guide (NCEE
210-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences,1 U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
www.whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practice guides
Stahl, S. A., & Kuhn, M. R. (2002). Making it sound like language: Developing fluency. Reading
Teacher, 55(6), 582-584.
Torgeson, J. (2005). Teacher knowledge of reading. Talahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading
Research.
Tovani, C. (2000). I read it, but I don’t get it: Comprehension strategies for adolescent readers.
York, ME: Stenhouse.
Vaughn, S. & Linan-Thompson, S. (2004). Research-based methods of reading instruction Grades K-3.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Supervision.
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., & Roberts, G. (2012). Intensive interventions for students
struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research
Corporation, Center on Instruction.

of 44
Vaughn, S.; Chard, D. J., Pedrotty-Bryant, D., Coleman, M., Tyler, B. J., Linan-Thompson, S. &
Kouzekanani, K. (2000). Fluency and comprehension interventions for third-grade students.
Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 325-335.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. Handbook of reading
research, 3, 403-422.
Wolf, M., O’Brien, B., Adams, K. D., Joffe, T., Jeffrey, J., & Lovett, M. (2003). Working for time:
Reflections on naming speed, reading fluency, and intervention. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing
and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale. (pp. 355-380). Timonium, MD: York
Press.

of 44
ABOUT THE REVIEWERS
Beth Ann Bryan, B.A., M.Ed.
Beth Ann Bryan is an education consultant from Austin, Texas. She has had a long career in public
education, including teaching in elementary classrooms, working with schools and families while in a
private psychological practice, and working for teacher preparation programs. She served in both state
and federal government roles and as the Senior Advisor to the US Secretary of Education, as a
consultant to education-related clients at a national and state level, and as an initial member of the
National Board for Education Sciences, advising the Institute for Education Sciences. Recently, she
completed service as the Interim Director of Education for the George W. Bush Institute and continues
to work as an advisor to the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk at The University of Texas
at Austin.
Martha “Marty” Hougen, Ph.D.
Dr. Hougen is the Teacher Education Professional Development Leader with the Collaboration for
Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center (CEEDAR Center) at the University
of Florida. The CEEDAR Center works with states to develop a Systems-wide approach to improve the
achievement of students who struggle with learning. Dr. Hougen works with Educator Preparation
Programs to ensure teachers and leaders are prepared to work with students with diverse needs. Her
previous position was as the principal investigator for the Texas Higher Education Collaborative, working
with educator preparation programs throughout Texas. Dr. Hougen presents at state and national
conferences, publishes in peer-reviewed journals, and has written two textbooks on reading.
Karen Nelson, M.S., CCC/SLP
Karen Nelson serves as the Executive Director for the Institute for Public School Initiatives at the
University of Texas at Austin. Ms. Nelson is a member of the State Leadership Team for the Texas
Literacy Initiative supporting the implementation of the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy federal
grant. Previously Ms. Nelson was Vice President of Field Implementation Services at Voyager Expanded
Learning. She also worked with the Texas Statewide Initiatives on the Texas Teacher Reading Academies
and as a speech-language pathologist and reading specialist in private practice and public schools. Ms.
Nelson is experienced in building consensus, planning and developing curriculum coaching infrastructure
and professional learning, and working with school district administrators throughout the country in
planning effective Systems for reading instruction and intervention.

Attachment.aspx 3

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Attachment.aspx 3 (20)

More from EducationNC (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Attachment.aspx 3