‘Scientific reading’ study led to school recommendations

Editor,

In reading the article, “Dealing with the deficit,” by Shaun Griswold in the Daily Lobo on Wednesday, I noticed that I was referred to by Rep. Jimmie C. Hall as having, “…embraced the idea…” of cutting funds from colleges or programs of education that do not teach educators the science-based reading curricula.

I would like to provide a clarification of the statement and perspective on exactly what I endorse. A joint memorial was passed in the 2010 Legislative Session (HJM16) called “Study Reading Curricula in Teacher Education” that engaged a yearlong, comprehensive study of the implementation of two legislatively mandated reading courses in all publicly funded teacher preparation institutions in New Mexico.
A workgroup was formed consisting of three deans (I was one of the three) as well as three legislators from the Legislative Education Study Committee — Rep. Hall was one of those three legislators.

We embarked together on probably the best study of the implementation of “scientific reading” that has ever been done in the state and produced a report to the LESC called “Study Reading Curricula in Teacher Education, HJM16,” which was delivered to the LESC on Dec. 13. In that report, all the members of the HJM16 workgroup endorsed five recommendations:
1) Rigorously assess candidate knowledge of how to teach reading as condition for elementary licensure either through the NM Content Knowledge Assessment in Elementary Education or through a separate exam.
2) Convene a statewide gathering of reading faculty to review the issues raised in the report and share best practices.

3) Develop a list of recommended texts that address the five essential elements of literacy/reading.

4) Convene the deans and directors at an LESC meeting during the 2012 session to present the approaches and solutions gleaned from the Spring 2011 meeting.

5) Include a review and the potential inclusion of required reading courses as part of the NCATE accreditation review process.

There is no mention of cutting funds for colleges or programs of education in the HJM16 workgroup’s report, and therefore it is not supported by the findings of that group. As the chairperson for all the deans and directors of education programs across the state, myself as well as all of the leaders embraced the findings of the workgroup, but none of us has embraced the cutting of funds to any of our programs.

Dick Howell
College of Education Dean