When you see results, you want to keep going. Mainly because this has such high stakes for these kids, who have our hearts; you can see a 16-year-old who has just beaten themselves down because they think, ‘I can’t read. I can’t read. I’m stupid. I’m stupid. I’m stupid.’ And you see they are making these strides, and you see them smile, and you see that lightbulb moment; it just makes you want it more and more and more. And that’s all you think about. To me, that was different. I haven’t had that in a teacher credential program before.
-Candidate in Fresno State’s new Reading and Literacy Leadership Specialist Credential Program
While most K–12 students in the US are reading below grade level (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2023), the statistics on reading levels are especially concerning in California, which ranks among the bottom ten states in the country for reading scores. Over 75% of California’s low-income students of color read below grade level and are at risk of never catching up (California Reading Coalition, 2022). As a result, the adult illiteracy rate in California is 28%, making it the second highest in the country (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2023). One of the problems is that most teachers have not had specialized training or certification in literacy education. California is one of the only states in the country with no district requirements for teaching reading and literacy. Fensterwald (2022) noted that in California, “Each district can decide how and what to teach, even if they use ineffective strategies and curriculums that can set back whether a child learns to read.”
A common assumption is that if you know how to read, you know how to teach reading, but this has proven false. Teachers are caught in the crossfire between vastly different theories of teaching reading. At one end of the spectrum is the whole-language theory, and at the other is the science of reading. These are vastly different approaches that require equally different teaching skills and strategies. Moreover, the reasons students struggle with literacy are complex and need to be differentiated. Some are English language learners (ELLs), some are working with dyslexia, and some are affected by severe poverty and gaps in schooling. In addition, many students—especially students of color—do not find reading culturally inclusive, engaging, and enjoyable, causing them to disengage.
Over the last year, Lisa Bennett, a professor at Fresno State, has completely revised the university’s literacy credential program, incorporating more generally research-based best practices on literacy education and teacher education. Fresno State is a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI) and an Asian American, Native American, and Pacific Islander–serving institution (AANAPISI) located in a part of the state heavily populated by migrant students.
According to Bennett: “Fresno State, part of the California State University system, is a large, regional public university in California’s Central Valley Region that enrolls approximately 24,000 students a semester. Fresno State serves large populations of students who identify as Hispanic (58.5%) or Asian (11.6%), a majority of whom have Mexican or Hmong roots, are the first in their families to graduate from college (66.2%), and receive federal Pell Grants (65%).” The pre-existing literacy credential master’s program at Fresno State was conducted in person and took 2.5 years to complete. This structure proved challenging for teachers, who commute up to five hours to get to the university. According to Bennett, many teacher candidates at Fresno State live in the mountains, in the foothills, and on farms. So, as Bennett redesigned the program, she created an entirely online program that teachers could finish in a year.
According to Bennett, Fresno State’s new Reading and Literacy Leadership Specialist Credential (RLLSC) Program was designed to “create a meaningful, context-specific, practice-based approach to preparing literacy specialists in California using a comprehensive developmental approach.” So, how specifically does this work, and what can other teacher education programs learn from this model?
Integrated Cohort Model
One of the most essential parts of the new program is that it uses an integrated cohort model where all candidates work with a dedicated professor and site supervisor. This stands in contrast to programs where candidates work with many different professors and take what can be seen as a series of disconnected courses that do not build on the previous knowledge learned.
As Bennett notes, “While the focus of a traditional class is often on the successful completion of coursework, the focus of this program is the development of a comprehensive repertoire of literacy coaching and reading specialist practices.”
Bennett further explains, “I wanted the candidates to experience the same theories I’m asking them to implement with their learners. The whole shift here is that they will engage in the practices they will need to take on as literacy coaches and specialists and will be mentored into those roles and work with the university instructor and site supervisor.”
Professional Learning Communities
Rather than calling their work together a class, the program has been rebranded as a professional learning community. This shift is more significant than just nomenclature; it reflects the fact that the participants in the program are learning from each other as they share and discuss their work with each other every week. Participants begin the program by co-building a shared website of research and resources, which they all contribute to. Bennett explains: “It’s not a competition. We’re not copying off of each other’s work. We’re learning together. And so, we’re looking at knowledge as not proprietary but out there for the general good. They’re reading research, but they’re also watching videos, looking at things online, and looking closely at their school curriculums. And we’re having conversations in class about what this looks like here versus what this looks like there.” This perspective was echoed by candidates in the program, one of whom shared: “I appreciated the way this program was set up. We would read research independently, then come back together and discuss it. We were all reading the same things and bouncing ideas off each other. We built the website together. We built our knowledge together. It was a very communal feeling.”
Site-Based Case Study Approach
The program also uses a case-study model in which candidates select a struggling reader from their classroom to closely observe, assess, and work with one-on-one throughout the year-long program. They thus get to test theory against real-time practice and engage in differentiated instruction. According to Bennett: “It’s not just recalling what they learn, it’s applying it. It’s using it. It’s transferring it. It’s adapting it. And so, by the time they finish that first eight weeks, they’re ready to start going deep with learners.” This approach is essential because many teacher candidates claim they were told to differentiate learning in their undergraduate teacher education programs but were given no concrete skill sets or strategies.
Learning to provide differentiated instruction is especially hard for teachers with many culturally diverse students. Bennett explains, “We waste time trying to get everything in there. Or we give a teacher a manual, and we have them turn the pages rather than giving them the tools to have agency and make informed decisions based on the students in their classrooms.” By contrast, in the redesigned program, Bennett underscores that “they are learning by doing, and their actions have a real immediate impact. Everything you do must be based on what’s happening with that learner. And if it’s not working, you need to shift and pivot until you find the practices that will work for that child.”
One candidate in the program confirmed the power of this approach, sharing: “I needed things that I could take into my classroom and be a better teacher. Not more theories. I needed something hands-on to go into my classroom and do and share with others. And that’s what this did. The program gave us hands-on approaches. So, we read theory and research, talked about it in class, and then applied it to what we were doing in the classroom.” One candidate noted: “The case study was massive. That was the most helpful thing in the whole class because of the application of it. Instead of just reading about it and it all being theory, OK, but how do I do this? We were always trying to figure out how to make it work for us.”
Inquiry-Based Teaching and Learning
Another unique aspect of Fresno State’s Literacy Credential Program is that it engages candidates in inquiry-based teaching and learning. This means that teachers are not only applying theory to practice in real time, but they are also learning what questions to ask about students to help more accurately assess their needs and progress. As Bennett explains:
That’s where the inquiry piece becomes solidified. Because we are now collecting baseline data and analyzing it to learn about our learners. We start with questions such as: Who are these children, and what do they love? What are their strengths, and what are their interests? How can we develop a relationship that encourages them and includes things they already care about and are meaningful to them? And then, we use that baseline data.
Teachers can approach their students from a data-informed and asset-based perspective by asking these questions. According to Bennett: “They’re starting with this idea that they have to understand the individual from a needs perspective, but also from a strengths perspective. Because those two things go hand in hand, the candidates systematically move their case-study child forward by pulling a curriculum that meets and develops the particular skills they need. And in many cases, they found that the typical lesson wasn’t working.”
Bennett further shares that the program is directly connected to what teachers do at their school sites: “We’re not telling them about it. We’re not trying to pour as much information and content into their minds as possible. They are responding through inquiry to the needs at their sites on the ground. They are learning how to seek the answers for themselves. Because no program or practice will meet every student’s needs.” Bennett believes that “when they learn how to use data to determine next steps, when they learn how to get micro-level with that, it feels like magic because suddenly children are making leaps and bounds that they couldn’t see in the classroom setting because they weren’t responding. Now, they love it.”
That Lightbulb Moment
Teachers in the program were wary at first, having struggled greatly with high illiteracy rates and low reading scores in their classrooms, but by the end of the program, they felt that they had the support and tools they needed to see that “lightbulb moment.” As one candidate shared: “I’ve been in a highly Hispanic community all my life. As far as teaching minorities, I feel that piece was easy enough for me. I recognized a lot of what we talked about, even in myself. But one of the biggest things I’ve always observed is that those students who are low have that negative self-esteem, and it just shuts them down.” She felt the program gave her concrete strategies to work with those students, building on their interests and strengths. Another candidate in the program, who taught high school, similarly reflected:
As a high school teacher looking at decoding skills, I know that stuff is always geared for third grade or lower. You can’t take a third-grade curriculum into a high school. It’s not going to work. Often, when we get these types of reading foundation kind of [PD], high school teachers say, ‘Yeah, whatever.’ Lisa [Bennett] would go out and help us find the research. Here is something specific to the older audience, which helped me figure out how to apply it right.
While we know much more about the science of reading than ever before—including the importance of phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension—that does not mean that teachers know how to apply these principles in practice with students with vastly different experiences and needs. According to Bennett: “I’m modeling for them what they need to be doing in their practices. We know that there are theories that support how people best learn, one of which is that learning should be authentic and meaningful and have a real purpose. Another is that they are supported by mentors who can push learning beyond where we are currently and can continue that dance back and forth, of supporting and pushing and scaffolding that works.” Hopefully, more schools of education will take note of Fresno State’s innovative model and find ways to adapt it to their credential programs.
References
California Reading Coalition. California Reading Report Card, 2022. www.careads.org/2022-reportcard
Fensterwald, J. (2023). “Newsom Proposes ‘Literacy Road Map’ Based on ‘Science of Reading’: Will districts follow it or ignore it?” EdSource.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). “Reading Performance.” https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2023/cnb_508.pdf
Alice Ginsberg is the associate director for research and grant development at the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Institute for Leadership, Equity, and Justice at Rutgers University. She is also the co-author of For the Love of Teaching (Teachers College Press, 2022).
Marybeth Gasman is the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Endowed Chair and a distinguished professor at Rutgers University. She is the co-author of For the Love of Teaching, along with Alice.
Andrés Castro Samayoa is an associate professor in the Lynch School at Boston College. He is the co-author of For the Love of Teaching, along with Alice and Marybeth.
