Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
The Oregon Journalism Project article, also published in Lookout Eugene-Springfield, declaring that most of Oregon’s state teacher prep programs still get an “F” in reading instruction, makes for an eye-catching headline. But it erases the realities of educator preparation in our state and does little to address reading outcomes for Oregon’s children.
The grades cited in the article come from a privately funded think tank in Washington, D.C. called the National Council on Teacher Quality. With a name like that, it can be easy to take their grading system as being in support of what is best for our children. However, the group’s reports rely on their own selective use of evidence and an analysis based largely on a quick scan of course syllabi rather than actual teaching or candidate learning.
In other words, these grades are not based on classroom observation, graduate effectiveness or student outcomes. They are based on how well a syllabus aligns with National Council on Teacher Quality’s rubric.
Other articles about Oregon teaching standards did not acknowledge these well-known concerns about the council’s analysis. The article did not include comments from Oregon’s 14 public and independent colleges of education. For instance, instead of asking why a university would not participate in this analysis, the article attributed nonparticipation in the analysis as lack of transparency. It overlooked the real concern that led to nonparticipation: the operating principles of the National Council on Teacher Quality. If asked, the author would have learned about the deep skepticism about a rating system that many experts view as ideological rather than empirical.
The article also treats teacher preparation as static, but the reality is quite the opposite. Oregon is in the midst of a major, statewide overhaul of literacy standards for teacher preparation programs.
A governor-appointed council recommended significant and transformative updates to align programs with evolving research on reading development. Oregon’s colleges of education participated in the development of these standards. We fully support and are deeply invested in this work. The new standards are still being implemented, with changes expected to take full effect in the coming academic cycles.
That timing matters. Evaluating programs mid-transition and assigning failing grades based on incomplete data and incomplete implementation is like grading students halfway through a course with a poorly designed test and declaring them unready to graduate.
Reducing effective literacy instruction to a checklist — and judging entire programs by whether their syllabi match that checklist — misses what experienced educators know: Teaching reading is complex. It involves not just decoding, but language development, cultural context, motivation and differentiation for diverse learners, including multilingual students and those with disabilities.
Oregon’s own literacy framework reflects this broader view, emphasizing foundational skills alongside comprehension, oral language and culturally responsive practices. High-quality teacher preparation must integrate all these elements, not simply mirror a single prescribed model.
Perhaps most concerning, the “F” narrative encourages a search for a simple culprit. If universities are to blame, then the solution seems equally simple: fix them.
But literacy outcomes are shaped by a far wider ecosystem: school funding, curriculum adoption, professional development, assessment systems, family and community contexts, social and economic lives of our students, and the working conditions teachers encounter once they enter classrooms.
Oregon should absolutely hold teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing effective reading teachers. But accountability should be grounded in comprehensive, valid measures: graduate performance, employer feedback, classroom outcomes and continuous improvement — not a single, contested rating system by an outside organization with unclear motives.
Oregon has already invested in aligning standards, supporting program redesign, and fostering collaboration between universities and K-12 schools. This work must continue and deserves recognition. Oregon’s children — and their teachers — deserve a more nuanced conversation.
