Science of Reading in Teacher Education: A Guide to the 2026 NCTQ Report

Slightly more than half of teacher preparation programs now align with the science of reading, according to a June 9, 2026 report from the National Council on Teacher Quality.¹ That marks a doubling since 2023, when just 25 percent of programs earned top marks for evidence-based reading instruction. The field has moved, but the grade remains a failure: one in five participating programs still earns an F for teaching multiple disproven practices, and more than 460 programs declined to participate entirely.

For M.Ed. students and teaching candidates, program choice determines whether you enter the classroom prepared to teach reading effectively or need remedial training on the job. Programs that opt out of review or rely on outdated methods leave graduates underprepared, shifting the burden to school districts and, ultimately, to students. The stakes are not abstract: a Fordham Institute and RAND Corporation survey found that teachers who relied on pre-service training were more likely to use outdated methods than those trained on the job, a reflection of weak program alignment with current research.

Key Findings From the 2026 NCTQ Decoding Progress Report

Roughly 53 percent of the approximately 1,000 teacher preparation programs evaluated by the National Council on Teacher Quality now earn top marks for teaching scientifically grounded reading instruction, according to the organization's 2026 report released on June 9.¹ That figure has doubled from just 26 percent in 2023, marking the fastest rate of improvement since NCTQ began tracking reading preparation quality in 2013. Yet the headline also carries a sobering corollary: nearly half of all reviewed programs still fall short of full alignment with the science of reading.

A Doubling That Took Over a Decade

When NCTQ published its first reading report in 2013, the share of programs adequately grounding future teachers in evidence-based literacy instruction was far smaller. Progress through much of the following decade was incremental. It was only between 2023 and 2026 that the pace of reform visibly accelerated, likely driven by a wave of state legislation mandating science of reading curricula and growing public pressure from families and literacy advocates. NCTQ's evaluation framework, which centers on five core components (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), did not undergo major methodological changes between the 2023 and 2026 cycles, so the improvement reflects genuine curricular shifts rather than a grading-scale adjustment.¹ Still, the longitudinal data covers only the top-rated tier, making it difficult to track movement at every grade level across report cycles.

The F-Rating Problem

About one in five participating programs earned an F in the 2026 review, meaning they actively teach multiple outdated or disproven reading practices.¹ For prospective teachers enrolled in those programs, the practical consequence is real: a Fordham Institute and RAND Corporation survey found that educators who relied primarily on their pre-service training were more likely to use ineffective methods than peers who learned on the job. That finding inverts what should be the purpose of a preparation program. Future special education teachers, who must master structured literacy approaches for students with disabilities, face especially high stakes when programs fall short.

The Non-Participation Problem

Perhaps the most striking detail in the 2026 report is what it cannot tell us. Over 460 teacher preparation programs declined to participate in the NCTQ review altogether. Non-participation rates were especially high in several large states: 72 percent of programs in Illinois, 58 percent in New Jersey, and 57 percent in New York opted out.¹ NCTQ President Heather Peske did not mince words, calling the situation "a form of educational malpractice against new teachers and the students they will serve."

For M.Ed. candidates specifically, the non-participation gap is worth noting: the report evaluates both undergraduate and graduate programs together rather than grading them as separate categories. That means there is no distinct graduate-level breakdown to consult. When a program you are considering does not appear in the NCTQ results, the most likely explanation is that it chose not to be reviewed, and that decision alone should prompt pointed questions about its curriculum and transparency. You can start by comparing M.Ed. programs by state to see which institutions in your region participated.

The report captures a field at a genuine turning point: measurable progress paired with deep, unresolved gaps. For educators weighing where to invest their time and tuition, the 2026 data offers the clearest tool yet for separating programs that have modernized from those that have not.

2026 NCTQ Reading Preparation Grades at a Glance

The 2026 NCTQ Decoding Progress Report evaluated more than 700 teacher preparation programs on how well they align with evidence-based reading instruction. While roughly half now earn top marks, a significant share still relies on outdated practices. For the full grade distribution and program-level details, visit nctq.org under Reports. Cross-reference ratings with your state department of education and individual program accreditation data, including Praxis pass rates and alumni outcomes, for a complete picture.

What Is the Science of Reading and Why Does It Matter for Teachers?

What does "science of reading" actually mean, and how should it shape the way teachers are trained?

The science of reading is not a single curriculum, textbook series, or instructional program. It is a converging body of research spanning cognitive science, linguistics, psychology, and neuroscience that explains how the brain learns to decode and comprehend written language. Decades of evidence point to specific instructional methods that reliably help children become proficient readers, and that evidence is what the NCTQ uses as its benchmark when evaluating teacher preparation programs.

The Five Essential Components

NCTQ's evaluation framework centers on five components that research consistently identifies as foundational to effective reading instruction:

• Phonemic awareness: Teaching students to hear, identify, and manipulate the individual sounds in spoken words, the skill that makes decoding possible.
• Phonics: Providing systematic, explicit instruction in the relationship between letters and sounds so students can map print to speech.
• Fluency: Building the ability to read text accurately, at an appropriate pace, and with expression, freeing up cognitive resources for comprehension.
• Vocabulary: Expanding word knowledge through direct instruction and rich language experiences so students can make meaning from what they read.
• Reading comprehension: Equipping students with strategies like summarizing, questioning, and making inferences to understand and analyze text.

These five pillars work together. Skipping or under-teaching any one of them leaves gaps that compound over time, particularly for students who do not arrive at school with strong oral language foundations.

What Outdated Practices Look Like

When programs fail to align with the science of reading, their graduates often enter classrooms relying on methods that research has discredited. Two of the most common examples are the three-cueing system, which encourages children to guess at words using pictures, sentence context, or first-letter clues instead of decoding, and an over-reliance on leveled readers as the primary instructional vehicle rather than systematic phonics sequences. These approaches can appear to work for students who would learn to read under almost any conditions, but they routinely fail children who need explicit, structured instruction the most.

Why This Matters for Student Outcomes

Teacher preparation is the earliest and most scalable lever for improving early literacy. A teacher trained in evidence-based methods can identify reading difficulties before they become entrenched and deliver targeted instruction that prevents long-term struggles. For at-risk populations, including English learners, students with disabilities, and children from under-resourced communities, the difference between a teacher who understands the science and one who does not can determine whether a child reads on grade level by third grade or falls further behind each year. Understanding how disciplines like educational psychology inform reading development can deepen a teacher's diagnostic toolkit. That is precisely why the quality of M.Ed. and teacher preparation coursework in reading is not an academic debate; it is a student-outcomes issue with lifelong consequences.

How NCTQ Evaluates Teacher Preparation Programs for Reading

Document review versus self-reporting: these two approaches to evaluating teacher preparation programs represent fundamentally different philosophies about accountability and transparency in higher education. Understanding how NCTQ conducts its evaluations helps prospective M.Ed. students interpret the 2026 report's findings and weigh the critiques that have accompanied its release.

The Document-Based Review Process

NCTQ uses a document-based review methodology rather than relying on programs to self-report their quality.¹ Reviewers examine publicly available syllabi, course materials, assigned readings, and instructional resources to determine whether programs teach the foundational components of evidence-based reading instruction. Programs do not submit grades or ratings about themselves. Instead, trained evaluators analyze the actual content students encounter during their preparation.

This approach has a significant limitation by design: programs that decline to share materials cannot be graded. The 2026 report notes that over 460 programs chose not to participate, which means prospective students cannot compare those institutions against participating programs. NCTQ argues this non-participation is itself meaningful information for consumers.

The A Through F Grading Criteria

NCTQ assigns letter grades based on how comprehensively programs address the science of reading.¹ The grading rubric remained substantially similar from 2023 to 2026, focusing on foundational skills instruction.

• Grade A: Programs must demonstrate explicit instruction in all five components of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) using evidence-based approaches throughout required coursework.
• Grade B or C: Programs address most components but may have gaps in coverage or depth.
• Grade D: Programs show limited alignment with research-based practices.
• Grade F: Programs teach multiple outdated or disproven methods, such as three-cueing strategies that encourage guessing based on pictures or context rather than decoding.

The percentage of programs earning an A rose from 26 percent in 2023 to 53 percent in 2026, suggesting either genuine improvement or, as some critics argue, possible issues with the rating methodology.¹

Critiques From AACTE and NEPC

The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and the National Education Policy Center have raised substantive objections to NCTQ's approach.² Their primary criticisms include:

• Syllabi as proxies: Reviewing course documents cannot capture what actually happens in classrooms. A syllabus might list evidence-based readings while an instructor emphasizes different content.
• No site visits: Unlike accreditation bodies, NCTQ does not send observers to watch instruction or interview faculty and students.
• Selection bias: With so many programs declining to participate, the sample may not represent the full landscape of teacher preparation.
• Over-reliance on documents: AACTE specifically criticized the methodology as treating document review as an adequate proxy for program quality when instruction is inherently more complex.²

These critiques matter for M.Ed. students weighing whether to treat NCTQ grades as definitive measures of program quality. Candidates pursuing teaching licensure with master's in education should view these grades as one input among several.

NCTQ's Response to Critics

NCTQ counters that transparency and public accountability have independent value. Programs that refuse to share their syllabi have made a choice the public deserves to know about. If a program's course materials would earn a strong grade, why withhold them from review?

NCTQ President Heather Peske has framed non-participation as a red flag rather than a neutral decision, arguing that prospective teachers and the families of students they will eventually serve have a right to know what reading instruction methods their preparation programs teach.¹

For M.Ed. candidates, the takeaway is nuanced: NCTQ grades provide one data point about curriculum content, but they should be considered alongside other factors including clinical experiences, faculty expertise, and program accreditation status.

State-by-State Trends in Reading Preparation Quality

State policy and program participation in NCTQ's review paint very different pictures depending on where you look. Some states have built strong accountability infrastructure around reading instruction; others have programs that simply opted out of being graded. For prospective M.Ed. students, geography matters because the licensure rules of the state where you plan to teach often shape what your program is required to cover.

The Non-Participation Problem

The most striking finding in the 2026 NCTQ report is not a grade distribution at all. It is the refusal rate. Seventy-two percent of teacher preparation programs in Illinois, 58 percent in New Jersey, and 57 percent in New York declined to participate in the review.¹ Nationally, over 460 programs sat out entirely. When the majority of programs in a state will not submit syllabi and course materials for outside review, prospective students lose the ability to compare options on the merits. NCTQ treated this as a transparency failure and, in its national totals, applied the 2023 F-rate to non-participating programs as a conservative estimate of what is happening inside those classrooms.

States Backing Reading Science With Policy

On the other side of the ledger, roughly 20 states now require a science-of-reading competency test (often modeled on the Foundations of Reading assessment) for initial elementary licensure or reading specialist endorsement as of 2026.³ That list includes Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia, among others. These licensure mandates create downstream pressure on preparation programs: if graduates cannot pass the test, enrollment suffers. Candidates pursuing Texas teacher certification through master's routes can see this dynamic firsthand, as the state's reading exam directly shapes program curricula. Iowa stands out at the opposite end, with no reading-specific licensure test on the books in 2026.

Reading the Map as an Applicant

A few practical takeaways:

• High-participation, high-policy states: Programs in states like Mississippi, Tennessee, and Colorado are more likely to have publicly graded curricula and a licensure exam that enforces alignment. That combination is a reasonable proxy for quality.
• High-refusal states: In Illinois, New York, and New Jersey, assume nothing from a program's silence. Ask directly for syllabi, course sequences, and any internal review documents.
• No-test states: In Iowa and other states without a science-of-reading exam, the burden falls entirely on you to vet the program. State licensure approval alone is not a sufficient quality signal.

What the Report Means for M.Ed. and Graduate Literacy Programs

The gap between undergraduate teacher preparation and graduate literacy training creates a blind spot for M.Ed. students who assume advanced degrees automatically mean better preparation. The 2026 NCTQ Decoding Progress Report focuses primarily on undergraduate and initial licensure programs, leaving graduate students with limited direct data about how their specific reading specialist or literacy coach programs measure up.

The Data Gap for Graduate Students

NCTQ's methodology centers on evaluating how programs prepare candidates for initial teaching licenses, which means M.Ed. reading specialist tracks often fall outside the primary review scope. This creates a significant information asymmetry. Graduate students pursuing literacy leadership credentials cannot easily access the same systematic evaluations that exist for undergraduate programs. If you are enrolling in a graduate reading specialist program, you may need to investigate alignment with science of reading principles through other means: reviewing syllabi, asking direct questions about phonics instruction methodology, and examining required textbooks for evidence-based content. For a deeper look at what the reading specialist career path requires, consider how program quality shapes your long-term effectiveness.

Reading Specialist Endorsements Carry Greater Weight

M.Ed. students pursuing reading specialist endorsements or literacy coaching credentials occupy a distinct professional role. These graduates do not simply teach reading to one classroom. They lead school-wide literacy change, mentor other teachers, and shape instructional decisions that affect hundreds of students. When a reading specialist program relies on outdated approaches like three-cueing systems, the downstream effects multiply across an entire building or district. The 2026 Fordham Institute and RAND Corporation survey, "From the Teacher's Desk: A Science of Reading Progress Report," found that teachers who relied on preservice training showed a lower association with science of reading knowledge compared to those who received on-the-job training.¹ For graduate students preparing to coach others, this finding carries particular weight: leadership positions amplify both effective and ineffective practices.

Do Not Assume Graduate Programs Are Better

A graduate reading program housed within a university that earned an F rating on its undergraduate literacy track should prompt serious questions. Faculty, course materials, and pedagogical philosophy often overlap between undergraduate and graduate programs at the same institution. An F rating signals that the program teaches multiple disproven practices at the foundational level. Before enrolling, ask whether graduate courses share faculty with the undergraduate program, and request specific information about how the curriculum addresses systematic phonics instruction versus balanced literacy or cueing-based approaches.

Non-Participation Affects Graduate Students Too

Over 460 teacher preparation programs declined to participate in the NCTQ review. Participation rates dropped notably in certain states: 72 percent of Illinois programs, 57 percent of New York programs, and 58 percent of New Jersey programs opted out. If a university's teacher preparation programs declined the review, that decision reflects institutional culture around transparency. Graduate students should ask admissions contacts directly: How does this program approach foundational reading science? What percentage of coursework addresses systematic phonics instruction? Can you provide a syllabus for core reading methods courses?

The Fordham/RAND survey also revealed a 10-percentile gap in science of reading knowledge between teachers in low-poverty schools (54th percentile) and those in high-poverty schools (44th percentile).² Graduate students who plan to serve high-need communities face even greater pressure to ensure their training prepares them for the instructional challenges ahead. Notably, 33 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools reported they were not committed to science of reading practices, and 41 percent opposed systematic phonics instruction.³ These numbers underscore why M.Ed. degree jobs in literacy leadership demand rigorous, evidence-based preparation from the start.

Related Articles

Gaps That Persist: ELLs, Struggling Readers, and Students With Disabilities

Even the highest-rated teacher preparation programs in the 2026 NCTQ report devote surprisingly little time to preparing teachers to support English learners, students with reading disabilities, and struggling readers who do not fit neatly into either category.¹ This gap exists across the quality spectrum: a program can earn a solid grade on science-of-reading fundamentals yet graduate teachers who have never received explicit training in dyslexia identification, structured language supports for multilingual learners, or the mechanics of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS).

Three Distinct Populations, Three Underserved Needs

The training gap affects three overlapping but distinct groups. English learners need structured language supports alongside phonics instruction: vocabulary scaffolding, syntax work, and explicit morphology that bridges their developing English skills and their decoding progress. Students with dyslexia and other reading disabilities require explicit multisensory instruction, often rooted in Orton-Gillingham or similar approaches, that addresses phonological processing deficits systematically. Educators considering a masters in special education should verify that their program covers these intervention methods in depth. General struggling readers, who may not qualify for special education but fall behind because of inconsistent instruction or gaps in foundational skills, are the most invisible: they often languish between intervention tiers, caught in a system that waits for them to fail far enough to trigger support.

What Little Time Means in Practice

When a program devotes little or no coursework to reading disabilities, graduates typically misidentify dyslexia as a motivation problem, a fluency issue, or a behavioral concern. They assign more practice rather than targeted intervention. They use whole-class pacing that leaves struggling readers further behind each week. The cost of this training gap is measured in years of student progress lost and in teachers who feel unprepared to meet the needs of the students in front of them.

The M.Ed. Opportunity: Differentiating Programs and Careers

For M.Ed. students and prospective reading specialists, this gap represents both a warning and an opportunity. Programs that explicitly address all three populations in coursework and supervised practica are differentiating themselves in a crowded field. A reading specialist who can design interventions for a fifth-grader with dyslexia, scaffold vocabulary for an emergent bilingual second-grader, and coach a classroom teacher on MTSS implementation is more valuable to a school than one trained only in core phonics instruction. Students exploring this career path may want to review options for an M.Ed. in reading and literacy to find programs with robust practicum components.

Questions to Ask Before You Enroll

Before committing to an M.Ed. program, ask directly: How many hours of coursework address English learners? Is there a dyslexia or reading disabilities practicum component? Does the program cover multi-tiered systems of support in depth, or only in passing? If the answer is vague or the program has not considered the question, you have learned something important about what your degree will prepare you to do.

Questions to Ask Yourself

How to Evaluate an M.Ed. Program for Science of Reading Alignment

More than 460 teacher preparation programs declined to participate in the 2026 NCTQ review, which means the absence of a rating is itself a signal worth investigating. For graduate students choosing an M.Ed. or reading specialist program, that reality demands a more deliberate audit process than simply checking accreditation boxes.

Look Closely at Coursework Descriptions

Program websites and course catalogs are your first screening tool. Search for explicit language: phonemic awareness, phonics, structured literacy, decodable texts, orthographic mapping, or the Simple View of Reading. A course called "Literacy Foundations" or "Reading in the Content Areas" is not sufficient evidence on its own. Those titles are common placeholders that can conceal curricula built on cueing strategies or balanced literacy frameworks that the research community has largely moved past. If the syllabi are not publicly posted, email the program coordinator and ask for them directly. A program confident in its curriculum will share that information without hesitation.

Probe the Practicum Structure

Field hours matter, but the quality of supervision matters more. Ask whether supervised hours include direct reading instruction, not just classroom observation. Ask whether your supervisor will provide structured feedback on your use of evidence-based methods specifically. Practica that focus only on general classroom management or holistic lesson delivery without evaluating your phonics or decoding instruction are a gap worth noting before you enroll, not after.

Run the NCTQ Transparency Test

Visit the NCTQ program database and look up the institution's undergraduate teacher preparation programs. If the institution declined to participate or earned a D or F at the undergraduate level, contact the M.Ed. program director directly and ask how the graduate curriculum differs. Ask whether the graduate program has been reviewed by any external body for science of reading alignment. Some programs have pursued International Dyslexia Association (IDA) accreditation or structured literacy endorsements, which are meaningful markers of intentional alignment. You can also compare best master's in education degree programs using independent rankings that track curricular rigor.

Check Faculty Research Backgrounds

Faculty publications and research interests are a reliable proxy for curriculum content. Look for faculty whose work references structured literacy, phonological awareness, dyslexia intervention, or IDA standards. A department whose faculty publish primarily on critical literacy theory or reader-response approaches may not deliver the evidence-based technical training that reading specialist certification requires.

Confirm State Licensure Requirements

As of 2026, state requirements for reading specialist endorsements vary considerably. Some states now mandate demonstrated competency in the science of reading as a condition of licensure. Confirm that the program you are considering satisfies the specific endorsement or credential requirements in the state where you plan to teach. A program that meets requirements in one state may fall short in another, and discovering that gap after graduation creates unnecessary delays and costs.

What Educators Can Do If Their Program Fell Short

You Are Not Alone, and the Gap Is Fixable

If you graduated from a teacher preparation program that did not ground you in the science of reading, you share that experience with thousands of colleagues. Until recently, most programs did not align with evidence-based literacy practices, and a Fordham Institute/RAND survey confirmed that teachers relying on pre-service training were more likely to use outdated methods.¹ Acknowledging the gap is the first step toward filling it with knowledge that directly improves student outcomes.

High-Impact Professional Development Options

Several nationally recognized pathways can rebuild your reading instruction foundation. LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) provides a comprehensive two-year course used by many districts. IDA-accredited structured literacy courses, offered by universities and independent providers, meet rigorous standards for dyslexia and reading instruction. Many states now offer science-of-reading professional development initiatives, sometimes at no cost to educators; check with your state department of education for currently funded opportunities. University certificate programs in evidence-based literacy instruction can also add a formal credential to your resume while deepening your practice.

Reading Specialist Endorsements: A Career Credential That Rebuilds Your Knowledge Base

For educators who want to lead literacy work, pursuing a reading specialist certification through a state-approved program is a dual investment: it positions you for leadership roles while systematically retooling your understanding of how children learn to read. A growing number of states (including Mississippi, Colorado, and Connecticut) have updated endorsement requirements to mandate demonstrated competency in scientifically based reading instruction. Verify your state's current standards, as these shifts reflect the broader professional consensus.

If You Are Still in an M.Ed. Program: Steer Strategically

Current graduate students whose programs are not fully aligned can take immediate, actionable steps. Use elective credits to enroll in coursework focused on structured literacy, multisensory instruction, or dyslexia intervention. During practica, request placements under a literacy coach or instructional coach rather than a general classroom teacher. These deliberate choices can supplement your program's curriculum and signal your commitment to future employers.

The Long View: Get Ahead of an Accelerating Shift

The proportion of teacher prep programs aligned with the science of reading has doubled in just three years, from roughly one quarter to more than half.¹ That trajectory makes literacy expertise one of the most future-proof investments you can make. Educators who voluntarily strengthen their knowledge now are not playing catch-up; they are positioning themselves as the literacy leaders their schools will urgently need.

Common Questions About the NCTQ Report and M.Ed. Reading Programs

The 2026 NCTQ report has sparked urgent questions from educators weighing graduate program options. Below are clear, research-grounded answers to the questions M.Ed. students and teaching candidates are asking most frequently.

Choosing a program with full NCTQ alignment versus one that declined to participate entirely: these are not equivalent unknowns. The 2026 report offers a useful transparency signal, not a complete audit of any program's quality. Treat it as a starting point, then investigate syllabi, practicum structures, and how a program addresses English learners and students with disabilities.

The field has doubled its alignment rate in just three years. That trajectory is clear. Whether you are selecting a program, midway through one, or already teaching, the science of reading is now a career-critical knowledge base. The educators who master this research, particularly those pursuing teacher leadership roles, will be the ones leading literacy reform in their schools and districts.