Most tests that elementary teachers take to enter the profession don鈥檛 adequately measure their knowledge of best practices for reading instruction, a new analysis contends.
The , from the research and policy group the National Council on Teacher Quality, analyzed the 25 different tests that states use to assess prospective elementary teachers in this area. NCTQ gave passing marks to just 10 of these tests, rating four of them as acceptable, and six as strong.
How elementary teachers are prepared to teach reading has become a central topic in the 鈥渟cience of reading鈥� movement, a national push to align literacy instruction with evidence-based practices. Some in the education field, including NCTQ, make the case that stronger licensure tests will lead to better student reading outcomes. But changes to state licensing systems, especially those that introduce new requirements, have long been controversial.
Most states鈥�29 of them and the District of Columbia鈥攗se one or more of the 15 tests that NCTQ rated as weak.
鈥淗aving a weak licensure test in place costs teachers, costs districts, and ultimately costs students,鈥� said Heather Peske, the president of NCTQ.
Licensure tests are designed to confirm that teachers have the knowledge and skills they need to do their jobs, Peske said. If the tests don鈥檛 meet that goal, teachers may not realize they鈥檙e ill-prepared, and districts and states may have to spend money on additional teacher training and support, she said.
A recent wave of state legislation has sought to bring the 鈥渟cience of reading鈥� into schools, mandating that districts use methods and materials aligned to the evidence base on how kids learn to read.
Often, these laws include training for current teachers, in part to make up for gaps in some preservice-preparation programs that neglect aspects of the foundations of literacy. A separate NCTQ analysis from June of this year found that 3 out of 4 elementary teacher-preparation programs don鈥檛 adequately cover all core components of reading instruction.
鈥淪tates need to take a systematic approach, and part of the system is focusing on the preparation of teachers coming into classrooms and schools,鈥� Peske said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e advocating for states to set very clear standards for teacher-preparation programs about how they should prepare teachers to teach reading.鈥�
But licensure tests are also an important piece of the puzzle, she said.
鈥淲e can鈥檛 continue to assign children to teachers who do not have the knowledge and skills to teach them how to read, aligned to the science of reading,鈥� Peske said.
Weak tests don鈥檛 address components of reading, combine reading with other subjects
NCTQ rated tests as 鈥渁cceptable鈥� if they adequately covered the five components of reading as listed in the 2000 National Reading Panel Report鈥攑honemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. These tests also couldn鈥檛 evaluate prospective teachers on more than three practices that NCTQ identified as contrary to reading research, among them miscue analysis, the use of leveled text, or guided reading.
(Those three practices are associated with balanced literacy and have been criticized for a lack of research supporting them. Miscue analysis is related to the three-cueing system, which researchers argue can undermine word-reading skill. Leveled texts purport to match books to kids鈥� reading levels, but may not ensure all students read challenging texts, while guided reading has incorporated both cueing and leveled texts.)
Licensure tests were rated as 鈥渟trong鈥� if they more fully covered the five components of reading, and addressed the needs of certain student subgroups, including English learners and struggling readers. (For more on NCTQ鈥檚 rating methodology, .)
Tests were rated as weak for different reasons. Ten didn鈥檛 adequately address all components of reading, and one included too much emphasis on practices contrary to research. Five combined reading with other subjects such as social studies or science鈥攁 decision that the report argues could muddle what鈥檚 known about a teacher鈥檚 knowledge, since high scores in another subject could make up for low performance in the reading portion.
Major testing companies, such as ETS and Pearson, offered both strong and weaker options for states. Some of their tests were rated 鈥渟trong鈥濃�攕uch as Pearson鈥檚 Foundations of Reading test and ETS鈥� Praxis Teaching Reading: Elementary鈥攂ut NCTQ rated others as weak.
鈥淓TS is continually exploring new ways to serve the educators of tomorrow and how we reliably measure the competencies they need to succeed in the classroom,鈥� Paul Gollash, vice president of K-12 Solutions at ETS, said in a statement. 鈥淲e know there is much more work to be done, and we appreciate those who are committed to progressing the field forward to create meaningful change.鈥�
Pearson declined to comment.
The report recommends that state leaders transition to stronger reading licensure tests, and that testing companies 鈥渟hore up鈥� weaknesses in existing products.
How important are licensure tests?
Exactly how strict teacher licensing requirements should be has long been a source of debate in the education field.
Advocates for higher standards say that they鈥檙e necessary to ensure future teachers have the knowledge and skills they need to be effective. But critics argue that licensing exams can bar otherwise qualified candidates from the profession, and that the tests don鈥檛 measure other qualities鈥攕uch as being able to connect with and engage students鈥攖hat could lead to success in the classroom.
In California, the state鈥檚 commission on teacher credentialing is the notoriously challenging Reading Instruction Competence Assessment鈥攔ated as 鈥渟trong鈥� by NCTQ鈥攚ith a portfolio-based assessment by July 2025.
Critics of the RICA test have . But proponents have said that it tests information teachers need to know鈥攁nd that the fault lies with the state鈥檚 preparation programs, which don鈥檛 emphasize the content.
Nationally, 鈥渢here is a fair amount of research that connects teacher performance on different licensure tests to the eventual achievement of students in different subject areas,鈥� said Dan Goldhaber, the director of the Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research at the American Institutes for Research, who studies teacher-licensing exams.
Some tests are better predictors than others, though. And there鈥檚 a stronger relationship between teacher test performance and student outcomes in 鈥渕athematically oriented subjects,鈥� and for students in higher grades, Goldhaber said.
At the elementary level, these relationships are weaker, and in some cases not statistically significant, he said. In part, he said, this difference could come down to measurement. It鈥檚 more straightforward to gauge teachers鈥� knowledge about high school biology, for example, than to measure whether teachers of young children have a firm grasp on the pedagogy that will make them effective in the classroom.
Still, he said, there鈥檚 not much research on the relationship between teacher test performance and student achievement in the earliest elementary grades, when students are learning how to read. Most of the research focuses on grades 3-8, Goldhaber said, as that鈥檚 when federal law requires students be tested.
鈥淐onceptually, it makes sense that teachers should know the science of reading,鈥� he said. If tests assess the specific skills that teachers need to improve children鈥檚 outcomes, it follows that stronger tests could lead to better student results, he said.
