The following are draft recommendations from a group of North Carolina literacy experts charged with improving reading instruction across the state.

1. DRAFT FOR COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS ONLY – WILL BE CHANGED BASED
ON COMMITTEE MEETINGS
PK-3 Literacy Task Force Recommendation Table of Contents
Recommendations on Professional Development 2
Recommendations on Curriculum/Instructional Resources 3
Recommendations on Pre-Service Preparation & Licensure 4
Barbara Foorman’s response to some unanswered questions: 7

2. Recommendations on Professional Development
In order for all NC students to have access to high quality educators, professional learning for
all teachers and administrators will include the opportunity to build knowledge in teaching
based on the science of reading. By increasing knowledge of teaching reading, we can help our
districts build systems for content and professional learning that are deeply tied to the science
of reading.
Recommendation 1: Allocate funding to support elementary literacy
professional development for PK-5 teachers, teacher leaders, literacy coaches,
and school leaders. This professional development will address current
scientific evidence in reading, utilizing multiple learning approaches and
platforms.
Recommendation 2: Allocate literacy coaches to every elementary school,
with at least one coach dedicated to grades PK-2 and one coach dedicated to
grades 3-5.
Recommendation 3: Develop an early literacy micro-credential (requiring at
least 60 contact hours) that addresses six components of the reading process:
comprehension, oral language, phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, and
vocabulary.
Recommendation 4: Require 20 contact hours of literacy professional
development based on current scientific evidence in reading for elementary
teacher licensure renewal.
Recommendation 5: Require 6 contact hours for literacy professional
development based on the current scientific evidence in reading for
elementary principal licensure renewal.
Recommendation 6: Establish literacy advanced degree pay compensation
for PK-5 teachers currently in instructional coaching/literacy coaching
positions.

3. Recommendations on Curriculum/Instructional Resources
Recommendation 1: Define criteria for evidence-based resources aligned to
the current science of reading. Execute a state-level process for expert
stakeholders (i.e. teachers, school leaders, district leaders, DPI reps, IHE
partners, etc.) to review, vet, and determine alignment of PK-5 literacy core,
supplemental, and intensive materials aligned to the current science of
reading.
Recommendation 2: Create guidance and resources to support the
understanding of the current science of reading. (i.e. definition, model,
framework, communication documents, printables for parents, etc.)
Recommendation 3: Fund evidence-based core, supplemental, and intensive
instructional materials aligned to the current science of reading for every PK-
5 student. Every student needs access to high quality curricula.
Recommendation 4: Provide access to high quality professional
development, job-embedded coaching, and consistent feedback related to
instruction using the evidence-based core, supplemental, and intensive
instructional materials selected by the district.
Recommendation 5: In order to support sustainability and fidelity of
implementation, develop an implementation rubric for literacy instruction in
the classroom aligned to the current science of reading. This tool would be
used by teachers, school leaders, and district leaders to self-assess the
application of science of reading practices and strategies.
Recommendation 6: Align all PK-5 literacy screeners, diagnostics, NC Check-
ins, EOGs, and all DPI resource banks of lessons, assessment items, and
teacher professional learning to the current science of reading.
Recommendation 7: In addition to a K-3 diagnostic, fund a statewide
diagnostic for grade 4 and 5 students who are below grade level in reading.

4. Recommendations on Pre-Service Preparation & Licensure
Recommendation 1: Set clear expectations that early childhood, elementary,
special education and leader preparation programs ensure their candidates
deeply understand and organize their teaching around the principles and
practices identified in domains five through eight of The Science of Early
Learning (Deans for Impact, pps. 8-11), the standards of the International
Literacy Association Standards (DATE & Citation Needed), the National
Council of Teachers of English/International Reading Association Literacy
Preparation Standards (2017), and the International Dyslexia Association
Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading (2018).
Supporting Recommendations:
1. Approve common standards and expectations for preparation in literacy that reflect the
principles and practices identified within current science of reading. Educator
Preparation Programs (EPPs) should be required to align program requirements,
including coursework and clinical experiences, to the standards identified within these
common expectations.
A. Establish common learning outcomes related to those principles and practices that
all early childhood and elementary candidates should be able to demonstrate upon
program completion. To demonstrate learning outcomes, EPPs should implement
candidate assessments grounded in principles and practices identified within the
B. current science of reading, including
● an observation instrument of teacher instructional practice, and
● an assessment of candidate knowledge and understanding of the principles
of the current science of reading.
C. Require all Educator Preparation Programs to engage candidates in intentionally-
sequenced clinical experiences that include opportunities to:
● Observe literacy teaching practices (e.g., faculty, university supervisors,
mentors) that reflect the principles and practices,
● Engage in early, deliberate and sustained practice opportunities during
which candidates enact the practices (e.g., low-stakes practice with teacher
educators and peers; authentic practice opportunities with children in early
and elementary settings), and
● Receive substantive and actionable feedback on enacted teaching practice
using an observation instrument focused on the principles and practice
identified within the current science of reading, especially as it relates to
teaching reading.
D. Provide opportunities and incentives for teacher educators, including clinical
faculty and mentors, to engage in professional learning opportunities to enhance
their ability to support candidate enactment of principles and practices identified

5. within seminal and current research. The State Board of Education should convene a
team of NC literacy experts to identify or develop online, self-paced and face-to-face
training modules.
● Training modules should cover principles of the science of reading focused
on reading and evidence-based methods (e.g. modeling, practice and
feedback);
● Successful completion of the training modules and a common, online
assessment should be available and accepted by the state as evidence that
faculty teaching literacy courses, literacy coaches, and mentor teachers
possess the identified knowledge and skills; and
● Individuals who achieve the credential should be allowed to facilitate future
state-supported professional learning for other teacher educators and
receive appropriate compensation.
Recommendation 2: Direct the Department of Public Instruction, Local
Education Agencies (i.e., school systems), Educator Preparation Programs,
Non-Profit Agencies, and community stakeholders to collaborate on an
alignment between pre-service educator preparation of early childhood and
elementary candidates and expectations and professional development of in-
service teachers.
Supporting Recommendations:
1. Advocate for, identify and distribute funds to support EPPs and their P-12 partners to
develop and implement redesigned programs.
2. EPPs should:
● Design/Refine coursework grounded in principles and practices identified within
the current science of reading
● Align high-quality clinical experiences and coursework that increase in complexity
over time.
● Develop meaningful and common assessment(s) of candidate learning.
3. LEAs should:
● Design/Refine professional development for inservice teachers grounded in
principles and practices identified within current science of reading.
● Develop meaning and common assessment(s) of teacher learning as well as clear
methods for feedback to teachers.
Recommendation 3: Reestablish compensation incentives for teachers,
teacher leaders, teacher coaches and school leaders with a Masters Degree in
reading or a reading specialist certification from an EPP utilizing an evidenced
based approach to the current science of teaching reading.

6. Recommendation 4: Develop a comprehensive state recruiting strategy for
elementary teachers trained in an evidenced based approach to the current
science of teaching reading with an emphasis on recruiting a diverse pipeline
of teachers
Recommendation 5: Require all EPP educational leadership programs to
include substantive coursework based on current scientific evidence on the
teaching of reading.
Recommendation 6: Define a statewide common definition of ready on day
one to distinguish between a novice teacher of reading and a master teacher
of reading.
References
Deans for Impact (2019). The Science of Early Learning. Austin, TX: Deans for Impact.
International Literacy Association and National Council of Teachers of English Literacy
Teacher
Preparation. (2017). Retrieved from
https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-
ncte-teacher-prep-advisory.pdf.
International Dyslexia Association - Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of
Reading.
Retrieved from https://www.idaontario.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/FINAL-KPS-FOR-PUBLICATION_May2018.pdf.

7. Barbara Foorman’s response to some unanswered questions:
1. The science of reading refers to the body of evidence accumulated over
the past decades explaining how people learn to read. The American
Psychological Society has provided research summaries of how children
learn to read (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2001;
Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018). Meta-analyses and systematic reviews
are statistical analyses of effect sizes in studies investigating how
children learn to read. The phonemic awareness and phonics section of
the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) was a meta-analysis showing
significant effects of phonemic awareness programs and phonics vs.
non-phonics instruction (see Foorman & Connor’s 2011 chapter in the
Handbook of Reading Research for rebuttals to criticisms of the NRP).
The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)’s practice guides are based on
systematic reviews of the literature. For example, the foundational
reading skills practice guide (Foorman, Beyler et al., 2016) reviewed
4500 citations and 860 studies and found 56 that met the WWC
rigorous standards of well-designed randomized controlled studies or
quasi-experimental studies. Importantly, none of these APS research
reviews, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews found support for the
three cueing system. Rather, the evidence supports explicit, systematic
phonics instruction in a variety of different curricula. The value of
systematic phonics instruction is to improve decoding skill, which only
indirectly improves comprehension by making decoding more accurate
and, eventually, more efficient. These indirect effects allow students to
advance only so far in understanding complex text. Building students’
proficiency in language and their knowledge of the world are important
to the broader goal of improving reading comprehension.
2. The evaluation of Mississippi’s K–3 literacy initiative conducted by the
REL Southeast was correlational (Folsom, Smith, Burk, & Oakley, 2017;
see
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southeast/pdf/REL_2017270.p
df). However, the fact that this IES report showed that gains in teacher
knowledge were associated with observations of implemented practices
and high student engagement in the teachers’ classrooms and
subsequent significant gains on grade 4 NAEP reading is very promising.
MS was the only state with significant gains on the 2019 grade 4 NAEP
reading so something noteworthy is happening there in reading.
3. Socio-economic status (SES) is a highly associated health status and
with beginning-of-the-year reading scores (which predict over 80% of

8. end-of-year-scores). Wrap-around early childhood educational services
can provide an impact on life outcomes as seen in the ABECEDARIAN
project: Campbell, F., Pungello, E., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., &
Ramey, C. (2001). The development of cognitive and academic abilities:
Growth curves from an early childhood education experiment.
Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 231-242.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.37.2.231