Skip to Content

False Assurances: Many states’ licensure tests don’t signal whether elementary teachers understand reading instruction

Cite Share Download Print-Ready PDF

Table 1: Licensure test ratings

Test name

Overall rating

Reason for rating

State(s) using test

Foundations of Reading (190)

Strong

Test addresses more than 75% of topics in each component and does not combine reading/ELA with other subjects

AL, AR, AZ, CT, MA, MS, NC, NH, OH, UT, WI

Praxis Elementary Education: Teaching Reading: Elementary (5205)

Strong

Test addresses more than 75% of topics in each component and does not combine reading/ELA with other subjects

CO, LA,* MD, NM, TN, VA

Praxis Elementary Education: Teaching Reading: K-12 (5206)

Strong

Test addresses more than 75% of topics in each component and does not combine reading/ELA with other subjects

LA*

Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA) - Video Performance Assessment

Strong

Test addresses more than 75% of topics in each component and does not combine reading/ELA with other subjects

CA

Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA) - Written Examination

Strong

Test addresses more than 75% of topics in each component and does not combine reading/ELA with other subjects

CA

The Science of Teaching Reading Exam

Strong

Test addresses more than 75% of topics in each component and does not combine reading/ELA with other subjects

TX

Certification Examinations for Oklahoma Educators (CEOE) Elementary Education, Subtest 1: Reading/Language Arts (150)

Acceptable

Test adequately addresses the five core components of reading and does not combine reading/ELA with other subjects

OK

Idaho Comprehensive Literacy Assessment (ICLA)

Acceptable

Test adequately addresses the five core components of reading and does not combine reading/ELA with other subjects

ID***

Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure (MTEL) Reading Specialist (62)

Acceptable

Test adequately addresses the five core components of reading and does not combine reading/ELA with other subjects

MA

Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) Lower Elementary (PK-3) [117-120], Subtest 2: Literacy

Acceptable

Test adequately addresses the five core components of reading and does not combine reading/ELA with other subjects

MI

Minnesota Teacher Licensure Examinations (MTLE) Elementary Education (Grades K-6), Subtest 1

Acceptable

Test adequately addresses the five core components of reading and does not combine reading/ELA with other subjects

MN

Florida Teacher Certification Examinations (FTCE) Elementary Education K-6, Subtest 1: Language arts and reading (601)

Weak

Test does not adequately address all five core components of reading (does not adequately address phonemic awareness)

FL**

Georgia Assessments for the Certification of Educators (GACE) Elementary Education Assessment, Test 1 (001)

Weak

Test does not adequately address all five core components of reading (does not adequately address fluency)

GA

Illinois Licensure Testing System (ILTS) Elementary Education (grades 1-6) (305)

Weak

Test adequately addresses the five core components of reading but combines reading with other subjects

IL

Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) Upper Elementary (3-6) [121-124], Subtest 2: Literacy

Weak

Test does not adequately address all five core components of reading (does not adequately address phonemic awareness, phonics,

MI

Missouri Educator Gateway Assessment (MEGA): Elementary Education Multi-Content (073 & 074), Subtest II (Field 074)

Weak

Test adequately addresses the five core components of reading but combines reading with other subjects

MO

National Evaluation Series: Elementary Education, Subtest I (102)

Weak

Test adequately addresses the five core components of reading but combines reading with other subjects

OR, WA

New York State Teacher Certification Exams (NYSTCE) Multi-Subject: Teachers of Childhood (Grades 1-6), Part One: Literacy and English Language Arts (221)

Weak

Test does not adequately address all five core components of reading (does not adequately address phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, or vocabulary)

NY

Pennsylvania Educator Certification Test (PECT) PreK-4, Module 2

Weak

Test adequately addresses the five core components of reading but combines reading with other subjects

PA

Praxis Early Childhood Education (5025)

Weak

Test does not adequately address all five core components of reading (does not adequately address phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary)

SD

Praxis Elementary Education Assessment (5006), Reading and Language Arts & Social Studies (5007)

Weak

Test does not adequately address all five core components of reading (does not adequately address phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, or comprehension)

AK, HI, IN

Praxis Elementary Education: Content Knowledge (5018)

Weak

Test does not adequately address all five core components of reading (does not adequately address fluency, vocabulary)

AK, MT

Praxis Elementary Education: Content Knowledge for Teaching (7811), Reading and Language Arts - CKT (7812) subtest

Weak

Test does not adequately address all five core components of reading (does not adequately address phonemic awareness, fluency, or vocabulary)

AK, DE, ID, KS, SC, SD, WV

Praxis Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment (5017)

Weak

Test does not adequately address all five core components of reading (does not adequately address phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary)

AK, ND, NE

Praxis Elementary Education: Multiple Subjects (5001), Reading and Language Arts (5002) subtest

Weak

Test does not adequately address all five core components of reading (does not adequately address vocabulary)

AK, DC, DE, HI, ID, KY, ME, NJ, NV, OK, RI, SC, SD, VT, WV, WY

Table 2: Less than half of states use an acceptable or strong test

Test quality
Number
of states
Strong test
18
Mix of strong and acceptable tests
1
Acceptable test
1
Mix of acceptable and weak tests
3
Weak test
27
No test
1

Download the Reading licensure test quality by state PDF for a detailed list of each state’s reading licensure test(s), rating, and rationale.

  • Author

    Hannah Putman

  • Project leadership

    Heather Peske & Shannon Holston

  • Reading Analysts

    Alison McKeeman Rice (Lead analyst), Alexandra Vogt, Kelly Ramirez, Jamey Peavler, Amanda Nickerson

  • State policy analysts

    Lisa Staresina, Jamie Ekatomatis, Rebecca Sichmeller

  • Data systems

    Tina Tibbitts

  • Communications

    Ashley Kincaid & Lane Wright

  • Funding

    The William Penn Foundation
    The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the report funders.

Endnotes
  1. This represents the 91,682 first-year teachers in states with weak tests or no test (states with a mix of weak and acceptable tests add another 7,000 teachers), using the most recent years of data available, 2017-18. U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2018). Number and percentage of public school classroom teachers (in full-time equivalents), by certification status and years of experience, by state: School Year 2017-18. Civil Rights Data Collection, 2017-18. http://ocrdata.ed.gov.
  2. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2022). National Achievement-Level Results. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4
  3. Hernandez, D. J. (2012). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved March 16, 2023 from https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-DoubleJeopardy-2012-Full.pdf; Tamborini, C. R., Kim, C., & Sakamoto, A. (2015). Education and lifetime earnings in the United States. Demography, 52(4), 1383-1407; Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & Kewal Ramani, A. (2011). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972-2009. Compendium Report. NCES 2012-006. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/dropout/intro.asp#r4
  4. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2022). National Achievement-Level Results. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4
  5. Goldhaber, D., Quince, V., & Theobald, R. (2018). Has it always been this way? Tracing the evolution of teacher quality gaps in US public schools. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 171-201; Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 293-307; Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Clifton, C. R. (2023). Racial differences in student access to high-quality teachers. Education Finance and Policy, 18(4), 738-752.
  6. National Reading Panel (U.S.), National Institute of Child Health, Human Development (US), National Reading Excellence Initiative, National Institute for Literacy (US), & United States Department of Health. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. For more about the research on these components, see National Council on Teacher Quality. (2023). Teacher Prep Review Reading Foundations technical report. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Prep_Review_Reading_Foundations_Technical_Report. Throughout this report, when we refer to reading instruction, we mean the type of reading instruction that is aligned with this body of research, or “scientifically based reading instruction.”
  7. Torgesen describes this finding in Torgesen, 2004. Specifically, the analyses he describes were based on the proportion of students reaching the “low average level” of word reading skills by second grade. While word reading is not the same as reading comprehension, it is a necessary precursor to comprehension, and measures of word reading fluency (and gains in that fluency) are predictive of broader student reading performance (Smith, J. L. M., Cummings, K. D., Nese, J. F., Alonzo, J., Fien, H., & Baker, S. K. (2014). The relation of word reading fluency initial level and gains with reading outcomes. School Psychology Review, 43(1), 30-40.). For more on studies finding that 90% or more of students can read with proper instruction, see: Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Preventing early reading failure. American Educator, 28(3), 6-9; Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator, 22(1-2), 32-39. www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/torgesen.pdf; Lyon, G. R. (1998). Overview of reading and literacy initiatives (Report to Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate). Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Health. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED444128.pdf; Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2-40. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305x; Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 414-431.
  8. Ellis, C., Holston, S., Drake, G., Putman, H., Swisher, A., & Peske, H. (2023). Teacher Prep Review: Strengthening Elementary Reading Instruction. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. https://www.nctq.org/review/standard/Reading-Foundations; Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(6), 526-536; Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M. E., Ocker-Dean, E., & Smith, D. L. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 392-402; Kurtz, H., Lloyd, S., Harwin, A., Chen, V., & Furuya, Y. (2020). Early reading instruction: Results of a national survey. Editorial Projects in Education.
  9. These tests vary in their attention to reading. Some tests are entirely dedicated to scientifically based reading instruction, some represent subtests that combine reading and English language arts, and some are tests in which reading plays only a small role.
  10. Analysts also reviewed several tests used for special education or early childhood teachers (who often teach elementary grades). Ratings for these tests are available upon request:
    • New York State Teacher Certification Exams (NYSTCE) Multi-Subject:Multi-Subject: Teachers of Early Childhood (Birth to Grade 2)
    • Praxis Reading for Virginia Educators: Elementary and Special Education (5306)
    • Florida Teacher Certification Examinations (FTCE) Prekindergarten/Primary PreK-3 (053)
    • Knowledge and Practice Examination for Effective Reading Instruction (KPEERI)
    • Praxis Early Childhood Assessment (5026)
    • Minnesota Teacher Licensure Examinations (MTLE) Early Childhood (Birth to Grade 3)
    • Minnesota Teacher Licensure Examinations (MTLE) Special Education Core Skills (Birth to Age 21)
  11. Tests’ ratings are not marked down if reading is combined with English language arts or similarly related subjects like communication arts.
  12. Foundations of Reading (190) covers the highest average number of topics across components of any licensure test that NCTQ reviewed.
  13. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, and Wisconsin.
  14. In seven states, candidates can choose from among multiple weak tests: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
  15. Burkhart, C., & Corbin, E. (2022). Hofmeister strengthens teacher pipeline with nationally competitive certification tests, free resources. Oklahoma State Department of Education. Retrieved from https://sde.ok.gov/newsblog/2022-06-01/hofmeister-strengthens-teacher-pipeline-nationally-competitive-certification
  16. Ellis, C., Holston, S., Drake, G., Putman, H., Swisher, A., & Peske, H. (2023).