POSITION STATEMENT BY THE CONNECTICUT READING ASSOCIATION AND THE CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION FOR READING RESEARCH REGARDING THE ALTERNATE PREPARATION FOR LITERACY SPECIALIST IN READING/LANGUAGE ARTS CERTIFICATION

June 5, 2003

While we applaud the fact that the Connecticut State Department of Education desires to address the increasing demand for special expertise in reading at all grade levels, we are opposed to the projected AAP program as outlined in the draft of March 26, 2003.  Our concerns have been brought before the Advisory Committee, and we appreciate that some of the concerns have been addressed.  However, we cannot support the AAP program as it now stands for the following reasons:

1.  A Master’s in Reading is absolutely essential for entry into the AAP program.  That requirement must include evidence that the individual has in-depth clinical experience as well as a background in diagnosis and remediation from an accredited university.

2.  Universities already accredited for the reading/language arts consultant certification program should be involved in the planning, implementation, and course delivery of  the  AAP.  Such universities already have experience with NCATE and IRA standards and have professors who are subject to rigorous systematic review of their credentials through both internal and external accrediting bodies.  RESCs generally do not have such personnel so qualified in reading.

3.  High standards for reading/language arts consultant certification must be adhered to. A university program provides the depth and breadth of knowledge gained over time that cannot be obtained through a short-term, minimal training program.  Reading is too critical an area for specialists with limited training to take a leadership role in the field. 

4.  Both the AAP Program Administrator and Instructional Coordinator should have a background as a practicing reading/language arts consultant.  As research has clearly shown, most administrators do not understand nor support the role of the reading/language consultant in its multiple aspects of leadership, instruction, and assessment. 

5.  An AAP program should be evaluated by an external qualified body of highly trained specialists in reading, rather than by the Advisory Committee that plans the program.  The AAP proposal needs a clearer description of its evaluation process, which should include an external review by highly trained specialists in reading, as well as a program self-study.