State Teacher Policy Database Homepage › North Carolina

Elementary Reading

Learn more about how North Carolina is ensuring elementary teachers are well-prepared and supported to deliver scientifically based reading instruction.
Go to a policy priority Elementary Reading Strategic Staffing Teacher Compensation Teacher Diversity Teacher Evaluation
Select a state Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

North Carolina’s Performance

Moderate
Explore the key policy levers below to learn more about how North Carolina is implementing Elementary Reading policies.
See how North Carolina performs across policy levers to improve Elementary Reading
Teacher Preparation Standards
Preparation Program Approval
Licensure Tests
High-Quality Instructional Materials
Professional Learning
Strong
Moderate
Weak
Unacceptable
Ungraded

Why focus on Elementary Reading?

Reading skills are fundamental for improving life outcomes for all children and reversing historical patterns of inequity. Estimates suggest that, with effective reading instruction rooted in the science of reading, more than 90% of students would learn to read.1 Effective teachers are the key component to strong implementation and long-term sustainability of policies designed to improve student reading outcomes.

Recommendations for North Carolina for Elementary Reading

High-Quality Instructional Materials

  • Create a list of high-quality reading curricula that is aligned with the science of reading, and require districts to select from the list
  • Enact a policy that requires districts to publish what reading curricula they are using to ensure transparency for parents and the school community
  • Allocate funds to help districts make the transition to high-quality reading curricula, requiring it to be aligned with the science of reading

Preparation Program Approval

  • Require the inclusion of literacy experts on site visits during program renewal processes to gauge implementation of the science of reading
  • Revise state program renewal processes to include a review of syllabi for all reading courses to verify alignment with the science of reading
  • Revise state program renewal processes to include a review of pass rate data for elementary preparation programs
  • Review state program renewal processes to ensure the state maintains full authority and has a process to review elementary preparation programs specifically for alignment with the science of reading

Teacher Preparation Standards

  • Create specific, detailed standards for teacher preparation programs for the five components of reading aligned with the science of reading, including what they should not teach
  • Revise teacher prep reading standards to include the knowledge and skills teachers need to support English Learners in learning how to read
References
  1. Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Preventing early reading failure. American Educator, 28(3), 6-9; 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. http://dr-hatfield.com/educ538/docs/Vellutino,+etal+2004.pdf; 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. A recent blog post summarized the findings of studies that looked at the outcomes of reading instruction, predominantly Tier I and Tier 2 instruction (one study looked at Tier 3, or more intensive, interventions). The conclusion of this review of research affirms that with proper instruction in reading, 95% (if not more) of students can learn to read. (2023). Can 95% of children learn to read? Pedagogy Non Grata. https://www. pedagogynongrata.com/the-95-rule