Dear Senators:
I would like to go on record in opposition to SB 614 (S. Rubio).
I am a literacy specialist who works with students who have reading deficits due to learning disabilities and/or inadequate instruction. SB 614 increases the likelihood of California students receiving inadequate instruction in their classrooms.
SB 614 would eliminate the Reading Instruction Competency Assessment (RICA). This includes the RICA Content Specifications first developed from the conclusions of the 1996 California Reading Initiative and reviewed in 2009 and 2014 to align with Common Core Standards.
SB 614 cites concerns that California has a teacher shortage and that “underprepared teachers are disproportionately serving pupils of color, low-income pupils, and English learners.” Removing current standards for reading instruction might get more credentialed teachers in our classrooms, but it will not better prepare those teachers to teach our minority and low-income students how to read.
Proponents of the bill also argue that the RICA is biased. However, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) monitors for exam bias by reviewing all test content, making changes as necessary, and performing differential item functioning analysis after test administration. This process is currently required by law, but SB 614 would remove the requirement to “analyze possible sources of bias on the assessment.”
Instead of continuing to improve the tools our state has developed, SB 614 proposes shifting responsibility to teacher preparation programs. Each program would choose their own performance-based measure to test reading instruction preparedness. The law would stop holding programs accountable to a clear universal standard.
SB 614 also plans to eliminate the specifications related to “comprehensive reading instruction” within the California Education Code. The law currently defines comprehensive reading instruction as including the following:
“The study of organized, systematic, explicit skills including phonemic awareness, direct, systematic, explicit phonics, and decoding skills.
A strong literature, language, and comprehension component with a balance of oral and written language.
Ongoing diagnostic techniques that inform teaching and assessment.
Early intervention techniques.
Guided practice in a clinical setting.”
Californians have long disputed reading instruction, but we have made a lot of progress since 1992 when our fourth graders scored lowest in the nation on the NAEP reading exam. In 1996, the California Reading Initiative began to change reading instruction. The goal of this special task force was to encourage teaching practices based on respected research in education, psychology, medicine, linguistics, and other related fields. After studying the research, the California Reading Initiative promoted the approach now outlined in our Education Code as “comprehensive reading instruction.” This approach aligned with the conclusions of the National Reading Panel a few years later. California teachers increased direct, systematic, and explicit instruction in skills like phonemic awareness and phonics. They incorporated language development and comprehension skills. Schools started to provide more early intervention.
Instead of the 19% proficient fourth-grade readers we had in 1992, we now have 32%.
Yes, there is still work to be done. That work does not include removing the statewide standards and oversight that have helped our children make progress up to this point. Instead, we should consider how to better prepare more teachers to use valuable research-backed methods to teach students how to read.
Please vote no on SB 614 (S. Rubio).
Sincerely,
Elena Girling
Developing Readers 