Last Friday, the IDOE sent out updates on the required literacy endorsement. I apologize for the delay in covering these changes. As we all know, the end of the school year gets a wee bit busy.

                  I am going to read through the documents that were emailed and then share my thoughts. It is evident that legislators and IDOE members have acknowledged our concerns and are taking steps in response. I appreciate the changes they have made but would like to continue to work towards fully fixing the issues together.

A side note: I am aware of the legislation that has been passed to introduce new graduation requirements for our current seventh graders. Many concerns were expressed about these new requirements during the last state board of education meeting. I haven't covered this topic since it doesn't fall within my area of expertise.

                  I will say education is always on the pendulum. We used to push college. Then we started pushing the trades. Now we are pushing so hard toward the trades that students no longer complete high school math, language arts, history, foreign language, art, or performing arts. I believe it has been suggested that these new requirements be rescinded as the previous requirements allow for more flexibility and fall more in the middle where students can pursue any path they choose and still be equipped with the education to take college courses in the future should they pursue that.

                  That is the extent of my knowledge. I am going to get back to the update on the literacy endorsement. Let’s start by looking at the email sent by the IDOE Literacy Center featuring Dr. Jenner’s letter, which was in the IDOE newsletter.

I want to address the statement of overcoming the number of Indiana students who cannot read. I’ll be the first to say that our local reading data is not where we would like it to be and below where we used to be before they shut us down for COVID. However, our data shows students can read, even those who did not pass IREAD-3. As I have pointed out before, the statement that 1 in 5 Indiana students cannot read is inaccurate. Many schools have a higher than 80% passing rate, and those students who did not pass can read and write just not at the level of proficiency required to pass IREAD-3.

                  I have mentioned before that the data we receive from IREAD-3 is not useful and I question its validity. Can we examine the assessment or another assessment to verify its evaluation of the relevant skills?

                  Let’s look at the next section. I can say I signed up for the Keys to Literacy training because I wanted to know what was being asked of our teachers. The training has been wonderful and valuable. Dr. Jenner also lists the many ways teachers had already completed this training. So, why was a mandate put in that threatened our licenses and livelihood?

                  No one complained when the science of reading training was offered on the INLearning Lab with a stipend attached to it. In fact, many teachers completed the training voluntarily even if they had already completed LETRs or Orton Gilligham training. Many schools applied for the literacy grant to bring the training to their teachers on a reasonable timetable. Those schools were in the middle of training their teachers when the recent mandate came out, interrupting their training schedule. I agree with Dr. Jenner many teachers and schools were voluntarily completing the training because the saw the need for it. So, again, why was the mandate passed? This made teachers go on the defensive and throw up walls, rejecting the training simply because it was forced on them with the threat of losing their license if they did not complete it. Why couldn’t we continue to complete the training through the initial initiatives?

                  All that to say, the stressful aftermath of the passing of senate bill one could have been avoided. No one likes to have their career and livelihood threatened. And although many teachers signed-up for the training out of fear, many are canceling their registrations to make a stand against the mandate. These same teachers would have gladly embraced the training and fully implemented it, if it was offered to them and not forced on them. As noted by the fact that many had and were completing the training voluntarily.

                  I am thankful that they are now offering a full asynchronous option. In addition, if you signed-up for a synchronous option you can switch to the asynchronous classes. Our trainer and a VP of Keys to Literacy took the time to go over this option with us, so that even those in the current pilot training can drop out and register for the asynchronous training. They did mention that the video recordings would not be available until September. They are working hard to pivot with these new updates as well and were very gracious and helpful as we navigate these changes.

                  The increased flexibility in who is required to earn the literacy endorsement is a step in the right direction and appreciated.

                  The issues surrounding the Praxis are not tricky to solve. This needs to be removed as requirement and allow it to be optional. The reasoning behind requiring the Praxis is to have a quality measure that ensures that we are best implementing science of reading practices. The Praxis does not ensure this.

                  For example, I know someone who no longer teaches, but use to teach at the secondary level. They did not complete the science of reading training, and just took the Praxis 5205 to see what it was like. They passed the test. Yet they do not have the formal training and will never implement the science of reading practices.

                  Therefore, the Praxis does not ensure that we as teachers are implementing science of reading practices. That falls on the shoulders of our administrators to hold us accountable.

                  I still ask the question why the concern over the quality of the training if it has been and continues to be on the IDOE approved list?

                  The two-year budget cycle makes sense and I understand why the IDOE could not guarantee the training would be paid for beyond the 2023-2025 budget. However, if this would have been communicated from the beginning it would have also decreased the tensions. Although it has been stated many times that teachers have three years to complete the training, it was not until now that we were told the free training might continue beyond June 30, 2025. Therefore, many teachers panicked about having to complete the training within a year.

Again, open transparent communication from the beginning along with talking with educators prior to passing a bill that has a huge impact on them would have led to better results.

They do ask that you share your solution ideas and I agree this is something we should do. Yes, we share our frustration but if that is all we do, we are not part of the solution. I encourage to share your solution ideas and I will be sharing mine.

I want to go over the FAQ that was linked into this letter as well. This document addresses questions for both future and current educators. It is a 7-page document that will be updated as questions come in. This is the version from May 17, 2024, and begins with addressing future educators. Here we go!

They have also updated their list of approved trainings. There is an extensive list that also includes college programs that provide the appropriate training for future educators. I will put a link to this document in this blog post. I am only going to go over the approved trainings for current educators as there are many questions surrounding these options.

That was a lot thrown at you. I highly recommend you look at these documents which are linked to the blog post for this episode. If you have any questions specific to your situation, email the IDOE Literacy center at INLitCenter@doe.in.gov.

I hope this information was helpful. As always stay educationally aware.