Every educator knows how political education is. Everything from our contracts to our school boards to the state and federal laws that dictate our policies and requirements is political. Often (Most? Almost all of the?) time, these decisions are made by politicians without a background in education. Teachers’ voices are relegated to the sidelines. This is why teachers get so excited when one of our own runs for the school board or other positions of power. Our perspectives and professional expertise are finally getting a larger voice. We’re getting a seat at the table.
After completing Indiana’s new Early Literacy Endorsement, required by state law to renew my current Indiana teaching license, all I can say is: I wish teachers had more seats at that table when the decision to pass this law was being made.
As part of the requirement, current, licensed teachers must complete 80 hours of professional development on the science of reading. I completed this professional development, and the whole time I kept thinking, yes, this is what I learned in my teacher education program. This was not new information to me.
We didn’t call it “the science of reading” when I completed my teacher education program, but all the core tenets of the science of reading were there. We learned how to teach reading explicitly and systemically. We learned about phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, reading comprehension, and vocabulary development. In short, we learned research-based best practices for teaching reading.
I currently work as a supervisor for student teachers, and across all the schools where I work with them, they have all been teaching reading well, using research-based, highly effective practices. It’s what they were already doing. If more teachers had been included in the discussion revolving around incorporating science of reading practices into education, I’m sure they could have told you the same thing: yes, we’re doing this.
But this law offers no flexibility to demonstrate that you already understand these core principles and teach reading well. The only way to meet the requirement to receive the endorsement is to complete specific professional development courses and then take a standardized test (a very specific exam called Praxis 5205 Teaching Reading: Elementary).
When I completed my B.S. in elementary education, I took an additional standardized licensing exam in reading to add a Reading Specialist Endorsement on my license (Praxis 5302: Reading Specialist). Passing this exam demonstrated my professional expertise and knowledge in teaching reading.
I decided to reach out to the Indiana Department of Education to ask if this could satisfy the Praxis Exam requirement of the new law. The first thing I realized in trying to contact anyone at the Indiana Department of Education is that it’s very hard. There’s no staff directory and no names attached to any of the communications I received back. I emailed a generic email—the most specific one I could find relating to Science of Reading requirements, and received unsigned emails back. They denied any exception I tried to make, saying this was a law and that the law provided only one option to prove proficiency: the Praxis 5205 exam. I can’t help but wonder if teachers had a larger voice in shaping this requirement, surely they would have suggested other alternatives.
I don’t have all the answers, but I know this isn’t it. Rigid requirements made by those outside of education are never the answer.
I like to learn. I have my Master’s and Ph.D. in Curriculum Studies. I also like professional development, and for fun, have co-developed professional development workshops for in-service teachers. But completing this professional development was not fun. It was, at best, repetitive (good, practical information, but I’ve already learned this!) and, at worst, condensed. One “article” we were asked to read had quotes from teachers saying things like, “I never knew how to teach reading before! I was just guessing!” Maybe this is the case for the random teacher or two who completed some questionable teacher education program. But for the vast majority of teachers, especially those coming from Indiana’s large public universities, I know this is not the case. What would teachers have liked to see in terms of professional development for teaching reading? Not patronizing articles. Maybe they could have been asked.
Teachers work hard at an oftentimes thankless job. They are blamed for things out of their control. They deal with condensing policies being handed down to them without any consultation on their part. And yet, despite it all, they love their students and work hard. They are experts in their field. They deserve to have a larger voice in things that so directly impact their lives and work.
I’m proud of the teacher-activists that I know. I’m proud of the work they do to amplify teachers’ voices. And I sincerely hope that teachers’ voices will continue to grow louder and carry more weight, especially regarding policies that affect their licensure.
