What Teacher Preparation Programs Get Right - and Still Miss - About Reading Instruction

What Teacher Preparation Programs Get Right - and Still Miss - About Reading Instruction

Key Takeaways

• The 2026 NCTQ Teacher Prep Review documents meaningful progress: the share of programs aligned to scientifically based reading instruction doubled since 2023, with 53% now earning an A.
• Despite this progress, significant gaps remain, particularly in preparing teachers to apply reading science in practice, not just understand it in theory.
• Parallel research on curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and data-based decision-making (DBDM) reveals a consistent pattern across teacher preparation: programs prioritize background knowledge and procedural skills over the higher-order, decision-making competencies teachers need most in the classroom.
• Closing the gap between knowing the science of reading and using it responsively requires intentional attention to practice opportunities, assessment literacy, and data-informed instruction: areas where teacher preparation programs continue to fall short.

What Did the Researchers Examine?

In June 2026, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) released its latest Teacher Prep Review, evaluating over 700 elementary teacher preparation programs on their alignment to scientifically based reading instruction. Programs were assessed on how thoroughly they cover the five core components of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, as well as whether they expose candidates to practices that contradict the research base (so-called "contrary practices," such as three-cueing and balanced literacy models).ultisensory techniques that strengthen sound-symbol connections and support orthographic mapping (Spear-Swerling, 2024). When technology substitutes for these practices rather than reinforcing them, instruction risks bypassing the very neural mechanisms reading depends upon.

Alongside this national report, a growing body of research examines what teacher preparation actually produces in terms of classroom-ready competencies. One particularly informative body of work focuses on curriculum-based measurements (CBMs): brief, timed assessments used to monitor student reading progress, and the extent to which teachers are prepared to use CBM data for data-based decision-making (DBDM). A 2024 systematic review by Fry and colleagues examined 29 practitioner-focused articles on CBMs and found that most content was devoted to background information and procedural guidance, with only about 18% addressing how teachers should actually use data to adjust instruction. Experienced CBM trainers, by comparison, recommended that roughly 34% of training content focus on DBDM.

So, we have to ask: are teacher training programs really preparing teachers to apply what they learn about reading science in ways that are helpful and grounded in real data? Even if these programs are getting better at teaching the science of reading, are they actually preparing teachers to use that knowledge to make a difference?

What Did the Researchers Find?

The NCTQ report delivers genuinely encouraging news. The percentage of programs earning an A has doubled since 2023, from 26% to 53%, and the share of programs teaching multiple contrary practices has dropped from 39% to 20%. States with strong accountability structures, Indiana, Colorado, and Mississippi among them, showed when you have strong systems in place to hold people accountable, you can make some real change happen quickly.

Yet the report also surfaces remaining and troubling gaps. Phonemic awareness, the most foundational component of early reading, remains the component that programs least often address adequately, covered by only 65% of programs, despite being a prerequisite for phonics instruction. More strikingly, 21% of programs provide no practice opportunities at all across any of the five reading components. The average program offers slightly less than one practice opportunity per component across all coursework, with fluency receiving the least. Programs are also largely unprepared to train teachers for the diversity of readers they will encounter: 60% of programs dedicate fewer than two hours to teaching reading to English learners, 50% spend fewer than two hours teaching reading to struggling readers, and 93% spend fewer than two hours on speakers of English language varieties other than General American English.

These findings align closely with what Fry et al. (2024) found in their analysis of CBM practitioner literature. Across both bodies of work, a consistent pattern emerges: preparation resources prioritize background knowledge and procedural skills - understanding what reading components are, or how to administer an assessment, over the decision-making competencies that translate knowledge into effective instruction. In the CBM literature, 42% of article content covered general background information and 39% covered administration procedures, leaving only 18% for the application of data to instructional decisions. In teacher preparation programs, a similar imbalance appears: programs are increasingly likely to teach about phonemic awareness or phonics, but far less likely to provide candidates with structured opportunities to practice teaching those components, assess student performance, and make data-informed adjustments.

When Fry et al. examined the specificity of DBDM guidance in practitioner articles, they found that fewer than 30% of relevant passages provided specific, actionable guidance on adjusting instruction in response to student data. The rest either mentioned the concept without expansion or offered only vague suggestions. The NCTQ report echoes this concern: Just because a program says it's following the five key components of teaching doesn't mean that teachers are ready to handle the wide range of students they'll have in their classrooms. This is a concern because teachers need to respond to their students' different needs to be effective. If teachers aren't prepared to do this, it can be a problem for students who need extra support.

How Did the Researchers Find This?

The NCTQ Teacher Prep Review is based on an analysis of course syllabi, required readings, and ancillary materials submitted by 721 elementary teacher preparation programs across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Programs were scored on their coverage of the five core components of scientifically based reading instruction, with grades ranging from A+ to F. Programs that did not provide materials received a grade of "could not be determined" (CBD). An additional 464 programs did not provide course materials; analysis of their textbook choices suggested they were disproportionately likely to rely on misaligned resources.

The Fry et al. (2024) systematic review analyzed 29 practitioner-focused articles on CBMs published in indexed journals. To examine how CBM practitioner literature addresses data-based decision-making, researchers conducted a systematic review of the 29 articles written for educator audiences. Each paragraph was coded into one of six topical categories, and the proportion of content devoted to each category was calculated and compared against benchmarks recommended by experienced CBM trainers. Researchers also rated the specificity of each article's DBDM guidance using a four-point scale: from no mention of instructional decision-making to specific, actionable guidance on when and how to adjust instruction in response to student data.

What Are the Implications of These Findings?

The merging of these research findings makes one thing clear to teacher educators, program leaders, and state policymakers - knowing the science of reading is a necessary but insufficient state for teacher preparation quality.

Implications for Change:

Practice opportunities must be treated as non-negotiable, not supplemental. The NCTQ report found that 21% of programs provide no practice opportunities across any component. Research consistently shows that candidates need multiple authentic opportunities to practice both teaching and assessing reading skills embedded throughout coursework, not confined to student teaching alone. Program leaders should take a close look at how their courses are structured to ensure that practice opportunities are well planned, occur regularly, and include feedback, rather than being seen as extra activities that only happen when there's time.

Assessment literacy and DBDM must be explicit preparation goals. The CBM research demonstrates that teachers are unlikely to use assessment data to drive instructional decisions if their preparation materials never modeled or required that kind of thinking. Teacher preparation programs should explicitly address how to interpret student reading data, apply decision rules, and select targeted instructional responses. This includes connecting assessment tools - whether CBMs, oral reading fluency probes, or phonological awareness screeners to the specific instructional adjustments needed.

Preparation for diverse learners requires the same demand as preparation for core content.The NCTQ report's findings on English learners, struggling readers, and speakers of non-General American English varieties are among its most urgent. These students are not rare: approximately 67% of teachers have at least one English learner in their classroom each year, and one in five students shows characteristics associated with dyslexia. Teacher training programs need to do more than just mention these topics briefly. They need to ensure that teachers have the knowledge and practice they need to help these students from the very beginning. This means giving teachers the skills and experience they need to meet the needs of all their students, not just the ones who are easiest to teach. By doing this, we can ensure that all students receive the support they need to succeed, regardless of their background or abilities.

State accountability must extend beyond course-level content audits. The states that showed the most dramatic improvement, Indiana in particular, combined clear expectations with on-site program reviews, financial support for redesign, and consequences for non-compliance. Research from CBM shows that simply ensuring the right topics are on the syllabus might not be enough. We need to make sure students are learning in a way that equips them to make good decisions and apply what they know in different situations. So, when states review programs, they should not only look at what's being taught, but also at what students can actually do with what they've learned.

What are the Limitations of This Synthesis?

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. The NCTQ review is based on submitted course materials and cannot fully capture the quality or implementation of instruction within teacher preparation programs. Additionally, programs that did not participate may differ systematically from those included in the review.

The Fry et al. review focused on practitioner articles rather than pre-service coursework, university syllabi, or clinical experiences. As a result, neither study examines the connection between teacher preparation, classroom implementation, and student reading outcomes.

Future research should investigate how teacher preparation influences instructional practice and, ultimately, student literacy achievement.

What Does a High-Quality Reading Course or Text Look Like?

A Checklist for Program Leaders and Faculty:

Course Design

• Covers all five core components with adequate instructional time for each (e.g., at least 7 hours for phonemic awareness, 8 hours for phonics, per NCTQ benchmarks)
• Includes graded assignments requiring candidates to demonstrate, not just recall, knowledge of each component
• Provides multiple structured, authentic practice opportunities per component throughout the course, with feedback; includes at least one focused on administering and interpreting a reading assessment
• Explicitly teaches candidates how to use assessment data to make instructional decisions, including when and how to adjust instruction when a student is not progressing
• Includes dedicated instruction and practice on teaching reading to English learners, struggling readers (including those with dyslexia), and speakers of English language varieties other than General American English
• Contains no instructional time devoted to contrary practices such as three-cueing, guided reading, leveled texts, or balanced literacy models

A Note on Specificity

When reviewing a course or text, ask not only "Is this topic present?" but "Does this material give candidates specific enough guidance to know what to do and when to do it when a student is not making adequate progress?" Research on both teacher preparation and CBM practitioner literature consistently shows that mentioning a topic is not the same as preparing candidates to act on it.

References

Ellis, C., Noble, R., Drake, G., & Peske, H. (2026). Teacher Prep Review: Decoding Progress in Reading Preparation. National Council on Teacher Quality.

Fry, E. C., Toste, J. R., Feuer, B. R., & Espin, C. R. (2024). A systematic review of CBM content in practitioner-focused journals: Do we talk about instructional decision-making? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 57(5), 275-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231215031

Espin, C. A., Toste, J. R., & Fry, E. C. (2021). Data-based decision-making in CBM professional development materials: Are we talking enough about instructional change? Remedial and Special Education, 42(4), 219-230.

Hindman, A. H., Morrison, F. J., Connor, C. M., & Connor, J. A. (2020). Bringing the science of reading to preservice elementary teachers: Tools that bridge research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S197-S206.