March 17, 2026 · Workforce and Higher Education Committee · 12,116 words · 9 speakers · 98 segments
Good afternoon. The House Workforce and Higher Education Committee comes to order. Take the roll, please.
Chair Young. Here.
Vice Chair Ritter, checked in.
Ranking Member Abdullahi.
Here.
Representative Davila.
Here. Representative John. Representative Manning. Representative Miller. Representative Pickle Antonio, checked in. Representative Richardson. Representative Santucci. Representative Timms. Representative Williams, checked in. Representative Workman, checked in. We have a quorum and we'll proceed as a full committee. There are minutes from the March 10th hearing that we had on your iPads. If there are any objections, hearing none, the minutes are hereby approved. Before we get started today, thank you for being here. Last week we had great testimony by our experts and also the Meadows Institute that did our audit. And so the committee was able to hear what the process was and how in-depth it was. And I want to make it clear that what the attempt was and we achieved was that nothing would fall through the cracks at all, period. We have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in this project, not project, this goal that we will achieve. and what we found was a very thorough process. The entities are the universities and colleges that are here today. This is not an attempt to in any way, shape, or form to, let's say, grade you or anything else. That's a little classroom vernacular there. But this is a challenge to lead. This is a challenge to remain committed to this effort and to take control of it in your own institutions and the perfect time to lead for our future and for our young people to be literate in this state. Hearing that, I'd like to start out today with Dr. Amity Noltemeyer, Dean of the College of Education, Health, and Society at Miami University.
Love and honor. Thank you. Chair Young, Vice Chair Ritter, Ranking Member Abdullahi, and members of the House Workforce and Higher Education Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. As was mentioned, my name is Amity Noltemeyer, and I'm Dean of the College of Education, Health, and Society at Miami University. I've worked in the college for over 15 years, starting in the role of Interim Dean in January 2024, just as we were starting our collective work on the science of reading. At Miami University, we recognize that literacy is the foundation of all future learning and economic opportunity for Ohio's children. We take our responsibility to prepare the next generation of educators seriously, ensuring they're equipped with evidence-based practices that work. I'm here today to provide an update on our recent Science of Reading audit performance, the steps we have taken to align our curriculum, and our long-term strategy for sustaining momentum as we move forward. I'm pleased to report that in the 2025 Science of Reading audit, Miami University was found to address 100% of the audit metrics. We were also found to be in full compliance with Ohio's definition of the science of reading as codified in the Ohio Revised Code While we proud of this performance we view it not as a finish line but as a validation of our faculty deep curricular work and a springboard for us to continually refine our practice as the science of reading evolves Our success in the audit was the result of a deliberate, high-intensity, collective effort that began in early 2024. Our team didn't simply tweak existing syllabi. We engaged in a comprehensive reimagining of literacy instruction. We began with cross-departmental discussions and collaborative planning in spring 2024. Faculty engaged in robust discussions about program philosophies, carefully examined the audit metrics, identified areas of alignment and misalignment, and identified courses that needed to be revised or redeveloped. With the support of a $6,000 Ohio Department of Higher Education grant, which our college matched with internal funds, an interdisciplinary team of faculty worked through the summer to redevelop our literacy core curriculum. This team consulted regularly with faculty and with our college's leadership. In August, they presented their work at their respective department retreats, and refinement continued into the fall 2024 semester until the new curriculum was approved through our shared governance processes. This effort resulted in a substantial consolidation and refinement of our curriculum. We revised 24 different literacy courses across 10 programs, down into 14 newly designed or significantly updated courses. This was a transparent process. We prioritized communication, ensuring our students, faculty, staff, leadership, and other stakeholders were fully informed about the importance of these evidence-based shifts, as well as the audit process. Literacy faculty also prepared for implementing the new curriculum through professional learning opportunities, such as consultant workshops, science of reading modules, and structured professional learning communities. We began launching this new curriculum in spring 2025, dedicating substantial time to ensure strong implementation. Moving forward, Miami University is committed to more than just compliance. Our long-term strategy focuses on continuous improvement, integration, faculty development, and innovation beyond the literacy core. First, we continue to reflect on our initial successes and use feedback and outcomes to refine implementation. We are continuing efforts to ensure that assignments are scaffolded across courses so that student learning builds logically from foundational theory to clinical practice. We are also continuing to refine coursework to ensure more explicit instruction on writing, inclusion of the International Dyslexia Association's 2025 dyslexia definition, and related supports for instruction, Ohio's integrated multi-tiered system of supports framework, and support for multilingual learners. We also aim to continue the process we've made in breaking down historic silos between disciplines such as special education and general education. Our long-term goal is to further integrate these tracks so that all teachers, regardless of their classroom setting or population, share a common language and methodology based on the science of reading. Our new inclusive education degree, which offers three licenses across general and special education, serves as an engine for this integration, fostering a unified approach to student success. Also, because the science of how we learn to read continues to evolve, our faculty training will not be a one-time event. We are committed to ongoing professional development to remain at the forefront of this field. For example, we are implementing initiatives including faculty participation in literacy modules, specialty training in evidence-based writing instruction, and communities of practice. Furthermore, we've submitted a proposal for funding to the Ohio Dean's Compact to develop deeper knowledge around Ohio's multi-tiered system of support framework. Beyond, finally, beyond core classes, we are expanding evidence-based literacy outreach for students, educators, and members of the community. For example Dr Sarah Watt is offering our third 30 Orton training workshop in partnership with the Institute of Multisensory Education This results in practicing teachers and students deepening their skills and receiving a certificate of training Additionally, Dr. Rachel Banda-Rothrock and Geneva Reyes are launching meaningful family community events that support continued literacy learning beyond the school day. We aim to sustain and expand these types of high-impact initiatives. In closing, Miami University faculty and staff have invested time, energy, and expertise into the science of reading. We are not just checking boxes. We're innovating to assure that every educator we graduate is ready to change the life of a child through effective reading instruction. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The way I'm going to run this session today is two individuals will come up and speak, and then we'll have questions. So next I'd like to invite Dr. Lisa Linhart, Professor of Curriculum and Instructural Studies at the University of Akron. If you'd come forward.
Welcome.
It's good to see you.
Hi. Good to see you again. Thank you, Chair Young and members of the committee for inviting me to testify today. I kind of went through and looked at what you asked of us, and I'm going to kind of just be a little more informal, if that's okay, and answer your questions. So the first one was how did we do on the audit? We have 100% on the audit metrics. We were in complete compliance with Ohio's definition of the science of reading, as the Ohio Revised Code stated. We had no mandatory recommendations. We did have one advisory recommendation, and that was to provide opportunities for all faculty, including adjuncts and branch campus faculty to participate in science of reading professional learning. So I wanted to take a minute and tell you what we've been doing at the University of Akron and the School of Education. We had a third frontier grant. I think the last time I mentioned it, we had just gotten that. We had a third frontier grant at the end of 23, where we were able to establish the Center for Structured Literacy. At the time, I was director of the School of Education, and we used that funding to hire a team of experts to come in, and we do all sorts of things. Initially, we rewrote our curriculum, and all of our students in three programs, K-5, the primary program, the middle school program, and our intervention specialist program, will all graduate as structured literacy dyslexia interventionists. So that's a level of certification that the faculty just got because part of that grant was also training faculty. So we have IDA accreditation now at the university. We not only use the science of reading, but we are fully steeped in structured literacy, and I think you heard from my colleague Rebecca Tolson last week about that. Some of the things we are doing with that advisory recommendation, we have monthly professional development for the faculty. We just had one Friday, their Lunch and Learns. Our topic last week was about talking about long-term learning. The next one is about orthographic mapping. So we are pulling the research, and we are talking as a faculty and adjuncts and our Wayne campus about that. We're having a summer institute this summer that I brought flyers. I don't know if you saw those last week. I can leave those where teachers across Ohio our higher ed colleagues are invited to come we have a national speaker Mary Ann Wolf So we attend that also but we have speakers come in nationally and that happening this summer We attend conferences. We present at IDA. We present on a state level and a local level. We have a new faculty hire, and we are only hiring now professors who are certified specialists in dyslexia and the use of structured literacy. So that's a requirement. We also do a lot of other PD. We can do PD with other institutes of higher ed, and we have done that prior to the audit with another university, and we went through their curriculum and we mapped it for them. So the Center for Structured Literacy has a lot of services, not just for our undergrads, but for teachers. I think you heard also that we're training 120 teachers in Summit County this summer. We have some philanthropists who are raising money and helping us to stipend to those teachers so that they also can have professional development in the science of reading and structured literacy. So our long-term strategy is to keep updating our curriculum. After we teach, we, like Miami just mentioned, have completely revised our curriculum. We didn't just fix things. We started from scratch. And so we are implementing that now, and that's what I said is our undergraduates will leave as interventionists. So we've been working to keep abreast of the latest research. We teach a class. We say, hey, I don't think this worked. We need more comprehension. We need a little less writing. So we are constantly reading the research, attending conferences, providing professional development, and changing our curriculum as needed. The long-term strategy is to continue what we are doing with this professional development. And I don't know if that's the end. I'm sorry.
You did fine.
Yeah. Thanks.
Dr. Noltenmeier, could you come forward again, please?
Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I lost my place.
Thank you both for coming. You were part of the section, the best of the best, and basically took on the task and set a very, very high bar moving forward. And I congratulate both of you and the colleagues in other universities that were able to achieve the same thing. That's exactly what the intent of this was. Can you give me some feedback as to when you went through the process, you touched on it, but when you first saw it, right, what was your opinion about that? I mean, had you ever seen anything like it before? What were some of the harder, most difficult things to do and so on and so forth when you were thinking through this entire process? Either one of you can comment or both.
When we heard about the audit?
When you saw some of the audit requests.
Yeah, yeah.
Did you do them in person or did you do them as far as virtual?
They came in person. They came to the university in person, and we had that set up prior. I have to say, because we had established this center, I felt pretty comfortable because I knew the work we'd been doing, and we'd been doing it before through the dean's compact. So we had been working behind the scenes before the audit. So we felt pretty good and pretty prepared. The Meadows Center really prepared a lot on a phone call of how it was going to work, so we felt comfortable with that. So we felt pretty good about it.
I would agree that by the time we got to the audit, we felt good about it as well. I think initially where we had to put in a lot of work was when we first heard about the requirements for House Bill 33 and all of the audit metrics and the time frame for doing that. It was really all hands on deck on how are we going to implement this massive change, and there were so many different directions that we could have gone, And we really wanted it to be not just, like I said, not just tweaking things, but also allowing us to maybe as an opportunity to address other things in the curriculum, such as efficiencies, program sharing courses, things like that. So we wanted it to be how can we achieve all of these goals together. And so really for us, I think a lot of that uncertainty was at the beginning, not at the audit process itself.
The fascinating thing to me was that they did surveys with students. and did you have any contact with the students afterwards? Did they make any comments to any of you afterwards, before or after, when they were asked to do so?
I did not.
No, we did. We sent an email to the students, and we had every instructor talk to the students just so that they understood what it was and why we were doing this and how we were improving the curriculum. Afterwards, I didn't directly hear from any students. However, I have about the survey. I have heard from some faculty that students are seeing the connections between their courses, their literacy courses more closely. They're getting some positive feedback about the courses.
Are there any questions from anyone? Representative Manning.
With the permission of the chair, it doesn't have anything to do with the audit or with science of reading.
You can ask any question you want related to walking in this room.
Thank you. So another bill that we're struggling with right now deals with our low math scores. I don't know if you guys are just focused on reading, but if you could kind of help me understand why our math scores are so low and what we can do about it. And you can always get back to me.
We can get back to you.
Thank you.
Do you have any?
Yeah, I think so as well. Yeah, we do have some faculty who are very engaged in the area of science and math who have started some conversation, but I haven't been a deep part of that, so I'd prefer to get back to you.
Any other questions?
I just have a couple, if that's okay. The important thing, as far as also, you talked about having lunch and learns. I want to hear a little bit about that. and any other unique things that you're doing to keep the students engaged in this process?
Well, the students are engaged. The lunch and learns are for the faculty. The students are engaged. I'll just speak for what we're doing. As I said, all of our students are leaving the University of Akron, and they can be certified dyslexia interventionists. To do that, they have to have a certain curriculum, and they have to have a practicum. So they are each, every morning from 8.30 to 9.30, we are all in Akron Public Schools, and our students are working one with a child through a structured literacy program They are very engaged It is not easy That the certification that the Third Frontier Grant provided funding for the faculty and our adjunct faculty to get. So I just earned that certification. So now our students are earning that. It is rigorous. But we try to give them the big picture of what it is, and our classes are so built on one another, And they always have been, but now they are so intertwined, the four reading classes, that it is like clockwork. The syllabi, it doesn't matter who's delivering because the faculty are on the same page, the adjuncts are on the same page. So our students, I would say, are engaged in that way. They're very aware of what we are doing. They're very informed. We explain, you know, the certification they're earning because they're like, why don't we just have field experience and why do I have to do it this many times? They get observed by videotape twice a semester. We just went through the first round, so we have to have an observation of them doing a structured literacy lesson, and then we spend time giving them the feedback and detailed feedback on every single piece. So I would say at the University of Akron, that's how our students are engaged.
Ours is actually pretty similar. Most of the professional learning that I talked about is for the faculty, because the first step, I think, for us was really to build the capacity of the faculty. And the students are engaged through their coursework, through their applied learning experiences within the coursework, as well as their practicums and their student teaching. One thing, when I recently asked a group of our faculty that are involved in the literacy programs, you know, how would they summarize some of the changes of what they've seen in terms of what the students are experiencing? And based on these curriculum changes, they said they would say we were going much deeper into the science of reading constructs. but also they're seeing the connections more to what the students are experiencing and going to be expected to do in the K-12 school setting. So more of that alignment, more of the better sequencing of our courses and setting them up for success in their field placements and in their practicums and student teaching.
Let's talk about curriculum. If you're in the Akron Public Schools and are you in the Talawanda Schools working as well, what's your perception of the materials that the schools are reading, right, using, and the selection that they have, and working with your students, because you're going to be skilled in choosing those types of materials.
Right. So this is something that we're really proud of. So when we trained the faculty and the adjunct faculty, We invited some administrators from Akron Public Schools to come in also. So it was the English Language Arts Curriculum Director and the TESOL Director. So we brought them in, and they learned with us. And they also did a practicum, just like we had to do, and they also would take the assessments for the certification if they chose to. So we chose a program that was on the state list. We used SPIRE at the university. And we chose that because that's what Akron Public uses for their Tier 3 instruction. So the way we have this is that the 120 students, I'll say, that are tutoring right now in Akron Public Schools, they're using the same program that Akron Public Schools are using. And so Akron Public Schools is getting the relief of those 120 students. We are doing it. We have the data We give them the assessments So we were trained using Spire That just the one we picked We train our undergrads Our undergrads are working in APS using Spire And then APS doesn't have to have teachers work with those students. It frees up more professional teaching time for other students because ours are supervised. And then when they graduate, they can go right into Akron Public if they want, or they can go into any district because many of these programs are basically the same. They have the same structure if you're using a structured literacy program, Wilson, Orton, Gillingham, Ames, whatever it is. So that's just the program. We're using it, but we selected that because with APS, so it makes sense that we're crossing over in many different ways.
Ours is a little different. I think we work with many different school districts across the area, and what we've really focused on most is how to, as was mentioned, there are lots of different curricula out there that are on an approved list. and working with our students to understand what is an evidence-based program, to be continual learners, to know how to evaluate evidence-based practices, to understand the core ideas behind structured literacy, the five ideas of reading, all of that. And so it's not necessarily working with one district on the curriculum they're using. We did have a grant previously with Lakota School District, a student teaching grant, to work on science of reading with their staff as well as our faculty and staff in our student teaching program. but we're not just focusing on one curriculum. We do have the Orton-Gillingham opportunity for our students as well though through one of our faculty.
I'm going to call some of my committee members up here. Go ahead.
That's okay. Thank you.
Thank you. This is Dr. Daltemeyer from Miami University on your right and Dr. Lisa Linhart from the University of Akron. We heard from their representative, Rebecca Tolson, Dr. Tolson, from the Structured Learning. Welcome, colleagues. I appreciate it. you weren't able to hear their testimony, but we have two universities representing those that were the, I call it the best of the best, and set a very, very high bar at their universities. And so we've had a few questions. I would like to close with one other. and this is in relationship to the assessments. And I don't know if we're going to be talking about the same thing or not. And if we are not, please, we'll talk about it off out of the committee. I'm just trying to understand it. When we talk about assessments, we pass legislation to include five assessment sections. and everyone's been abiding by that. We're getting questions about expanding that, and I don't agree with it. But how would that affect you in a way if we change legislation right in the middle of when we just got started in this process? Yeah.
Yeah. So I think it sounds like we're not really familiar with that change.
Yeah.
Which assessments are you referring to Right Are you talking about students or Student Yeah Oh like children In the classroom K
Okay.
Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry.
I don't know that answer.
Okay, good.
Yeah. I just wanted to know.
I don't have enough information at this time.
Right. Right. That's fine. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Keep up the good work. Next we'll have Dr. Jim Dennison, provost and vice president for academic affairs at Wright State University, followed by Dr. Melissa Villisca-Gregory, dean and professor of the Judith Erb College of Arts, Science, Social Sciences, and Education at University of Toledo. So welcome. Good to see you.
Good to see you. Thank you.
Chair Young, Vice Chair Ritter, Ranking Member, Abdullahi, and members of the committee, my name is Jim Denniston, and I serve as Provost of Wright State University. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today on behalf of Wright State University regarding our compliance with Ohio's Science of Reading initiative. I appreciate the committee's leadership and continued focus on strengthening educator preparation and literacy outcomes across the state of Ohio. Per the request of Chair Young, my testimony will specifically address three areas. Wright State University's performance in the statewide science of reading audit, institutional measures currently underway to ensure full and sustained compliance, and our long-term strategy for continuous improvement and accountability. Wright State University met all 73 of the science of reading metrics evaluated in the state audit, earning a perfect score of 73 out of 73 on the instructional standards that were reviewed. Wright State was one of approximately 20 educator prep programs statewide to achieve this benchmark, reflecting the strength of our reading core and its alignment with evidence-based literacy instruction. Of the 25 sections reviewed during the audit, one course included a textbook that contained references to 3Qing system. That course was taught for the final time in spring of 2025, and the textbook is no longer used in any Wright State course. Wright State University has submitted documentation to the Ohio Department of Higher Education, confirming that all currently offered coursework is fully aligned with Ohio's science of reading requirements. All courses meet all 73 standards, and 3-queuing is not referenced in any instructional materials. I'd also like to emphasize that Wright State volunteered to participate early in the statewide audit process. That decision reflected our commitment to transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement. The audit confirmed that Wright State faculty and administrators are fully committed to compliance and excellence in science of reading instruction. Wright State has implemented a structured institutional response to ensure full alignment with the science of reading and compliance with section 33 33.048 of the revised code. This work includes systematic curriculum review, professional development opportunities for faculty and strengthened oversight of instructional materials. Wright State has established a formal annual science of reading self-assessment process for all literacy courses within the educator prep program as required by the Ohio Department of Higher Education. Each annual review includes a detailed examination of course syllabi, textbooks and instructional materials, course assignments and assessments, and university alignment with the 73 science of reading metrics used in the state audit. All materials are reviewed and documented annually using a detailed science of reading SharePoint site. Any curricular changes are clearly recorded and compared with both the private year's review and the findings from the 25 state audit. To support this work, Wright State has added a new faculty line in teacher education and hired a literacy faculty member who began in fall of 2025. We also established a departmental science of reading and literacy committee composed of faculty with expertise in literacy instruction. Working in collaboration with the department chair and college leadership, the committee is responsible for reviewing literacy course materials each semester and during the annual self-assessment, verifying ongoing alignment with Ohio science of reading standards, planning and delivering professional development for all faculty including adjunct instructors, documenting compliance and reporting findings to university leadership, participating in all p20 literacy collaborative meetings and all Ohio literacy meetings, and planning and hosting an annual science of reading workshop to review strengths and address areas for improvement. Because many literacy courses are taught in multiple sections by different instructors, Wright State has implemented a course lead system. Each literacy course has a designated faculty member responsible for ensuring consistency and compliance across all sections. Course leads ensure consistent implementation of course objectives and science of reading standards. They collect and review syllabi and instructional materials for the annual self-assessment. They complete alignment documentation using templates aligned with Ohio literacy guidance. They facilitate collaboration and communication amongst instructors. And they participate in the annual Science of Reading self-assessment workshop and report regularly to the committee chair. Wright State has also implemented a structured review process for reviewing all reading core textbooks and instructional materials. Faculty are required to select texts identified by the Ohio Department of Higher Education as aligned with the Science of Reading. ODHE's starter list vetted by the Meadows Center serves as the primary reference. Should a faculty member propose using a textbook not included on the ODHE list, the instructor must complete a detailed textbook review form demonstrating alignment with science of reading standards and verifying that the text does not reference three cueing or related practices. The Science of Reading and Literacy Committee reviews the submission and forwards it to the department chair for final approval before adoption. To further strengthen program quality, Wright State is also engaging external experts in the science of reading to review our annual self-assessment, course materials, and alignment documentation. These experts provide independent feedback and guidance to support continuous improvement to not only ensure our compliance, but also continuously elevate our teacher education program. Wright State recognizes that alignment with the science of reading is not a one-time effort, but an ongoing institutional commitment. Our long-term strategy focuses on continuous evaluation, faculty professional development, and institutional oversight. The annual self-assessment required by ODHE ensures continuous improvement in science of reading alignment. Each year, course leads review instructional strategies, materials, and assessment. Wright State also hosts an annual science of reading workshop prior to each fall semester to review findings and plan improvements. Self-assessment results are reviewed by an external evaluator to provide additional insight and guidance. Ongoing faculty professional development is a cornerstone of our strategy. To date, literacy faculty have completed advanced training including Letters 1 and 2, The Writing Revolution, and Core Reading Sourcebook training. All faculty in the department completed 20 hours of Ohio Science of Reading modules reading modules and participated in three professional learning sessions with Christine Schlater regional literacy specialist for the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce Region 6 Faculty have also hosted literacy launch events for students collaborating with the university libraries to expand science of reading resources, and integrated Ohio Department of Education and Workforce modules into the 12-credit hour reading corps. These efforts will continue annually. Finally, Wright State has embedded science of reading oversight within the broader institutional governance structure. The department chair, college dean, office of assessment and accreditation, and the provost's office all play active roles in reviewing documentation and ensuring compliance. This committee is reinforced through budgetary decisions that support faculty hiring, external review, professional development, and participation and literacy conferences and statewide initiatives. This commitment, in closing, Wright State University is fully compliant with Ohio's science of reading requirements and remains deeply committed to evidence-based literacy instruction. We appreciate the committee's leadership and welcome continued collaboration as Ohio strengthens educator prep and reading outcomes for all students. Chair Young, Vice Chair Ritter, Ranking Member Abdullahi, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm happy to take questions.
Thank you. Dr. Gregory, would you come forward now, please? It's great to have you. Thank you. I got to meet your president. He's awesome. He is awesome. I fully agree. So thank you.
Chair Young, Vice Chair Ritter, Ranking Member Abdullahi, and members of the House Workforce and Higher Education Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify on the outcome of the science of reading audit for the University of Toledo. I'm really appreciative of the chance to be here, and I'm grateful for your hard work on behalf of public higher education in the state of Ohio. My name is Melissa Veliska-Gregory, and I am the dean of the Judith Herb College of Arts, Social Sciences, and Education, which is the academic college at the University of Toledo that includes all of our teacher preparation programs. So I am here as a representative of UToledo's outstanding education faculty, as well as the future teachers that we train, who are among the hardest working students that I know. Although I should also say that all of our students are hardworking. I do have a couple of rockets here. They're political science majors, so they're interested in these proceedings. Our student teachers are actually student teaching right now. I want to begin by thanking the committee for its commitment to the science of reading and its vigilant work to ensure that students across Ohio receive the very best teaching practices. The University of Toledo is equally committed to improving literacy outcomes for students across Ohio, And I mean it when I say that we welcome every opportunity to hold ourselves accountable to this goal, and we appreciate the state's partnership and our efforts. Overall, the audit process allowed us to review, assess, and further strengthen our entire reading curriculum in alignment with the science of reading, advancing our commitment to equipping our future teachers with the strongest evidence-based practices in literacy instruction. And so for the remainder of this testimony, I'm very pleased to respond to Chairman Young's three questions sent by Peyton regarding, one, the University of Toledo's audit scores, two, ongoing efforts to achieve curriculum alignment, and three, our long-term strategies for implementing science of reading moving forward. So one, our scores. At the top of the audit process, UToledo provided documents for 10 individual courses to our audit partners and that included of course syllabuses, course assignments, readings and other materials. When the site visit team came to UToledo they met with all reading instructors and teaching education administrators observed classes and spoke with students I proud to report that the outcome of this process was that the University of Toledo did achieve alignment with 100 of the 73 audit metrics and this is an achievement that reflects the expertise and sustained efforts of our education faculty, who are deeply committed to ensuring that our curriculum remains current and in accordance with the latest evidence-based practices. The audit team also gave us two commendations that we were really excited about. The first commended faculty for their deep understanding of evidence-based literacy practices, and the second praised our faculty for their unified commitment to preparing pre-service teachers to meet the needs of all readers. There was absolute 100% agreement that we had to do this at UToledo. Now, in addition to meeting 100% of the audit metrics and receiving those two commendations, We also received a designation of non-compliant due to a textbook used in two courses within a graduate reading endorsement. And just to review, a reading endorsement is that post-baccalaureate state-approved supplemental credential that's added to an existing teaching license. So it certifies a licensed teacher to teach reading and literacy strategies beyond the foundations that beginning teachers get. The textbook within those two reading endorsement classes, the Flint Cooter Comprehensive Reading Inventory, was flagged for containing a 3-Qing approach. That book was only used as supplemental material in the two courses and not as the main textbook, and we respect and accept the audit's determination that it is not fully aligned. So that brings us to two. Update on the institutional measures for curriculum alignment. After the audit's identification of the noncompliant textbook, UToledo acted very promptly to address that issue. we immediately replaced the flag text with an appropriate, compliant textbook. And what that means is that within that fairly brief window of time between receiving our audit results and the public announcement of those results, which I think was about 10 days, we selected a new textbook, updated the syllabuses accordingly, and submitted our revised materials to the state. And then the provost, of course, signed off on those actions in an official attestation. So as of December 2025, the University of Toledo is fully aligned with all audit metrics and functionally in compliance. And I want to say we are deeply grateful to the Ohio Department of Higher Education's invitation to correct and resubmit the previous non-aligned textbook. Which brings us to three, our long-term strategies for science of reading implementation. The University of Toledo has taken several important action steps to implement the science of reading curriculum long term in our educator preparation programs and literacy courses. Administrators, faculty, and key education staff, and I think you're hearing a theme here of the need for teamwork with this work, right, have collaborated to complete a written plan for annual review and improvement of our reading program. And this plan includes, of course, reviewing all course syllabuses, texts, and instructional materials, But it also includes analyzing data, particularly first-time pass rates on the Ohio Assessment for Educators Foundations of Reading Test, otherwise known as OAE 190, and conducting item-level analysis of those pass rates. And I do want to mention that current first-time pass rates on OAE 190 for UToledo are 75%, which is above the state average according to recent ODHE data. We will also be collaborating as a faculty team to revise content and update the comprehensive crosswalk of course content as it maps to audit metrics. We will be providing training for all full and part-time reading instructors, including biannual meetings to discuss learning modules and their application and teaching practice. And finally we will be incorporating audit recommendations every April which is an important time for us because it when everything is fresh right so we can really pull it together every April through a process of annual faculty review of syllabuses texts assignments and additional materials from the past two semesters And steps like the ones I've just outlined represent the type of rigorous foundational work that is necessary to improve literacy outcomes. Maintaining cutting-edge effective curriculum requires long-term vigilance, constant review, careful analysis, responsive decision-making, and sustained faculty and administrative collaboration in support of a shared mission. So in conclusion, engaging with the science of reading audit process, including meeting all metrics, receiving commendations, and then also being held accountable for promptly addressing a non-compliant text, provided valuable insight and direction for the University of Toledo's educator preparation programs. The work we completed through this process reflects our mission-driven commitment to literacy instruction, and I want to emphasize that improving literacy rates across Ohio is not merely a matter of compliance for us at the University of Toledo. We take this personally. We are deeply committed to empowering students to become confident and capable readers because we know that having sophisticated literacy skills will help them walk through the doors of opportunity. Expanding literacy success is at the heart of our professional values and our work as educators, and we're proud of our dedication to current practices, continuous improvement, and the pursuit of excellence. So thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today.
Thank you. Before the meeting, the hearing got started, I want to reiterate the fact that what I had told those that are coming to testify today is the goal here is to identify how thorough the Meadows audit was and a challenge to set the bar higher, right, and also to lead. And that's really what we're trying to achieve in this entire process in educating this committee of all the work that you are doing, what we've done with the audit and how we'll continue in the future to be able to achieve our goal for leading in literacy in Ohio. Does anyone have any questions? Representative Manning.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for coming in. And great presentation. I appreciate that. Sounds like University of Talibah's doing it all right, But maybe you could help me. I've heard that some of the schools may have been dinged because of queuing, just even mentioning queuing, saying, you know, we don't use it and this is why we wouldn't use it. I don't know if you saw any situations with that personally. I don't think queuing is that bad. You know, when you're working with a three-year-old and they can't figure out the word giraffe, you're going to tell them to use the pictures, right? So if you could talk, if you saw any problems with that or heard from other people.
We did a lot of work to ensure that 3Qing was not referenced in any of the course materials and lectures that were provided to our students. We were greatly disappointed to learn that one of the textbooks in a course that was being taught out during the spring 25 semester had a few pages of material on 3-queuing. That course was deactivated several months before the audit findings came out and we're no longer using that textbook. We're really dedicated to avoiding that approach to instruction of reading.
So just a quick follow-up. So let's say that in the book it said queuing, shouldn't be used, and this is the reasons why. Would we have to get rid of that book? Personally, I would not think so, but that's at the discretion of the Meadows Center in providing that list of approved textbooks. Thank you.
May I? Chair Young to the representative's question.
I do want to say that reading pedagogy changes and evolves over time, right? And it doesn't mean, I think, that 3Qing is a villain. It simply means that it's considered less current. And I do think that one valuable part of this audit was simply to prioritize a current way of teaching reading. And by saying, no, we really mean this. We're going to focus so tightly on it that everyone will row in the same direction and really do it. That that's the valuable piece of that. It doesn't mean that it can't bring anything to the table, but at this particular moment, really getting everyone aligned was helpful.
Representative Williams.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you guys for coming in from my alma mater. I really appreciate everything that you guys are doing. I even appreciate the audit and you guys were being proactive before the results even came out. We appreciate those steps. I looked at the science of reading not only because of the potential educational outcome to our students, but also the process that we were undertaking at higher education was something that was a little bit different. We were going to take a little bit more of a heavy-handed approach towards higher education. And some people didn't like it in the beginning, but I think the process kind of worked its way out. When we say, Chairman, where the legislature was adamant that we want to see the same outcomes across the state of Ohio for our students, and the only way we could accomplish that goal was to get our institutions of higher learning who were teaching our teachers aligned with the way that we wanted to teach reading in our schools. And I think this is an example of, yeah, at the beginning there was apprehension, but we can actually work in a cooperative way to get to that outcome goal because if we get the reading scores up here in the state of Ohio, we may be attracting more and more educational students to the state of Ohio because of the quality of reading instruction that we have at our institutions of higher learning. So I applaud you guys on taking the steps of identifying things that were wrong in the beginning. I think that was the purpose behind the audit. We weren't just going to rely on you to say you were in compliance like we've done in the past. And we were able to make a swift change is what I see at my university, my alma mater, that you guys made the change proactively before the even audit results came out. And you got your curriculum in line. And it seems like now we're on the right path. So I appreciate you guys doing that. I appreciate the legislature for giving the oversight that I think is necessary at our colleges and universities, and I appreciate the chairman for pushing for that. So thank you. It was more of a statement than that.
Any other questions? Representative Richardson.
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you both for your testimony. Dr. Gregory, I noticed your enthusiasm, so I will direct my question to you, which I totally appreciate, by the way. But can you just tell me, why is the science of reading so valuable? What is it about the science of reading that's going to reshape how our students learn how to read and how, in the end, how it's going to promote their ability to be very successful in life? Thank you, Chair Young, to the representative's question.
So I will say two things And one is that I think my faculty in education could answer this question way better than I can in the sense that I know they could show you all of the individual technical pieces right of science of reading and how we think about it and how it's different than 3Qing where, you know, you look at the pictures. But I will say in a kind of broad sense, what's good about science of reading is that it's evidence-based, right, so that we're constantly looking at the evidence for what seems to be working right now. And demographics change over time. Students change over time. And so part of the project of educators is to constantly test, assess, listen, and see what's working, and then immediately put that data into practice. So it's data-informed, and it's evidence-based. So thank you.
Thank you. No follow-up.
Ranking Member Abdelahi.
Oh, I'm so sorry. Thank you, Chair. Thank you both and everyone else who came to testify. It's been very enlightening. Have you seen any changes in enrollment ever since implementing the science of reading or any perceived, I guess, change in competitiveness for attracting students? We have not seen a change in enrollment at Wright State in our teacher prep programs to date.
Chair Young, to the representative's question.
Yeah, similarly, although it's also been recent, right, that everything was kind of fully in place. And I will also say that I think I hear from our students all the time that they feel really good when they go out into the classroom. They feel that they are strongly prepared as student teachers. And I think that's not just with science of reading, but it's certainly a component of that, that they feel that they're bringing, again, current evidence-based practice into the classroom.
Thank you.
Any other questions? I have one. And one of the key features here and that we've talked about is dyslexia. And I've been in many situations over the years where they talk about that it's difficult to identify if a child has not been tested. And there are organizations that help work with those young people. but now it's gone into the classroom a little bit more, a lot of awareness of dyslexia. But can you elaborate on the importance of how we've integrated the training for dyslexia into the science of reading, the implications of that, and how the teacher that you are teaching will be able to address that in the classroom?
Or do you want me to answer that one?
Chair Young, I'm not able to answer that question.
I'm not a subject matter expertise in dyslexia, but I'd be happy to research that and bring back a response. Great.
Chair Young, I am going to answer same.
So thank you for your question. It's a good one. When the experts were here last week, it was extraordinary the detail they got into to explain how that really, really works. And so it will be as we go forward, It will be interesting to see as our students graduate and walk into that classroom the impact it will have because there is evidence that it works amazingly.
Any other questions? Thank you very much for being here.
Dr Sean Dawn Senior Welcome Dean and professor of College of Education and Human Development at the Bowling Green State University Welcome Thank you It a pleasure to be here Chair Young, Vice Chair Ritter, Ranking Member Abdullahi, and members of the House Workforce and Education Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the recent science of reading audit at Bowling Green State University. As introduced, my name is Dawn Schnu, and I serve as the Dean of the College of Education and Human Development at Bowling Green. Bowling Green State University was established in 1910 as a teacher training institution by an act of the state legislature in recognition of how important teaching was for the future of our communities. In the more than 115 years since the Lowry Bill was passed, Bowling Green has evolved as a comprehensive university, but the very spirit of why we were founded has remained the same. Teaching and learning have been at the core of our mission from the beginning. Today, Bowling Green State University is the largest producer of teachers at a single site in the state and the 16th largest in the nation in terms of the number of graduates from a teacher preparation program. Our alumni teach in nearly every K-12 district in Ohio. As a public university, we have been focused on ensuring our academic programs meet our state's workforce needs, and we have been innovative in our approach. For example, more than a decade ago, BGSU launched the state's first dual licensure program in general and special education and is built on this success with other dual licensure programs. In response to the critical teacher shortage, BGSU also launched the first entirely online alternative route to licensure, providing licensure pathways for career-changing adults and in remote areas of the state. Our reputation for excellence in educator preparation has driven steady enrollments. Currently, we have over 2,000 aspiring teachers enrolled in our undergraduate programs, and we anticipate increased enrollments with our fall cohorts across nearly all education majors. We host one of the largest teacher job fairs in the country, an event that brings 150 school districts from across Ohio and the nation to BGSU each spring. According to Title II data, last year we graduated over 480 new teachers. Data suggests that approximately 74% of our graduates go on to teach in Ohio's public schools, and while the data is more difficult to ascertain, we know BGSU graduates also accept teaching positions in Ohio's parochial and private schools. As a leader in Ohio and the nation, we take our role in teacher preparation extremely seriously. At Bowling Green, the foundational pillars of the science of reading, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension have always been integrated into our coursework. In response to the recently passed standards and legislative priorities, we undertook a full reorganization of our literacy courses and program to strengthen our alignment and ensure that every teacher continues to encounter these principles within a coherent, evidence-based framework. As you all know, to assess the institution's readiness for implementation of Ohio's statewide realignment of literacy preparation in the science of reading, the Ohio Department of Higher Education commissioned an audit conducted by a team led by the Meadows Center at the University of Texas, Austin. Unlike many institutions, we provided reviewers not only with copies of course syllabi and key assessments, but also gave them full access to all course materials through Canvas, our learning management system. I am proud to share that Bowling Green State University met all 73 evidence metrics used to evaluate our literacy preparation programs The audit team commended the collaborative work of BGSU faculty who teach reading to our pre and in candidates as well as the recently revised set of courses required for all education majors and graduate students that clearly align with the science of reading. The Meadows Center noted, and I'm quoting here, faculty thoughtfully reorganized the program structure to improve coherence and coverage of essential content. This included streamlining the course sequence, embedding a foundational course for all candidates, and distributing practicum experiences across multiple courses. The team also praised the extent to which, and again I'm quoting here, all pre-service teacher candidates begin with shared core coursework that includes early exposure to students with exceptionalities and an introductory field experience that spans urban, rural, suburban, private, and online school settings. Pre-service candidates engage in progressively intensive fieldwork during each year of their program, culminating in a senior year of professional residency. In addition, Boeing BGSU received recognition of the broad faculty involvement in course redesign and curriculum review, including the intentional inclusion of general education, special education, and branch campus faculty. These colleagues participated in weekly updates, retreats, and collaborative planning and helped develop the new courses. Faculty worked in small teams to review materials aligned with science of reading, select course text, pilot courses and redesign the program sequence. The audit team identified the strategic sequencing of courses to build knowledge and support students' field-based application as a particular strength across the institution. Despite these commendations and earning a perfect 73 out of 73 of the evidence-based metrics, the audit identified Bowling Green as not in alignment due to outdated course materials in two graduate-level courses that made reference to the 3-queuing approach. These materials should have been removed and were missed in our curriculum review. I appreciate the opportunity to share how this occurred. First, I want to acknowledge this was absolutely a mistake based on human error and oversight. We take this very seriously and have worked to ensure this will not occur again in future curriculum review. However, it is important to emphasize that failing to remove these outdated materials is not a reflection of our program's content or instructional philosophy. Again, Bowling Green met 73 out of 73 of the evidence-based metrics and received commendations from the auditors on our faculty involvement to ensure we were meeting state guidelines. For context, the two graduate courses which were flagged served one-tenth of one percent of the 1,180 students enrolled in reading coursework at Bowling Green and had already been slated for deletion prior to the state's audit. While we reviewed the syllabi, learning outcomes, required text, and key assessments of the two graduate courses in question, we overlooked a small number of outdated references and readings which were not aligned with the science of reading. As was planned prior to the audit, we deleted both courses and provided documentation to the Chancellor's Office, confirming that these have been removed entirely from the university catalog. With the elimination of these two classes and the auditor's early conclusion that we met 73 of 73 metrics, BGSU can be considered in full alignment with the spirit and the letter of the law. BGSU remains full committed to preparing teachers with the evidence-based knowledge and skills they need to support early literacy. We value the audit process, we take compliance seriously, and we will continue ensuring that our programs reflect both the letter and the spirit of the science of reading. Thank you for your time and your strong commitment to literacy outcomes for Ohio students.
I'm happy to take questions the committee may have. Thank you very much. I want to start questions here. Representative Miller.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here. I appreciate having an education degree from the Bowling Green State University. Very proud of that. I'm also very proud of what you just put up here in your metrics. My question is around this notion that as a couple items were missed in reference, so something was referenced in the curriculum, therefore having you out of compliance. Do you believe that missing that reference changed the student's ability to teach the science of reading as the new curriculum is set? Through the chair to the representative, no.
The learning outcomes were clearly aligned. The required text of the course, one of the articles actually talked about the controversy, but in the spirit of transparency, it did not, was not as current as the research that we have now that would suggest 3Qing is not the best strategy that we should be using. So they were outdated. If you know how learning management systems work, it pulls materials automatically. Had we seen these, we would have eliminated them, but what we focused on, again, were the primary key assessments, those kinds of things, and we missed those.
Thank you. Keep up the good work. Thank you.
Follow-up? Any other questions from anyone? Thank you very much for coming. Thank you. We appreciate it. Now I'd like to call Dr. Eric Perfelli, Interim Dean of the College of Education and Human Ecology at the Ohio State University.
Thank you, Chairman Young. Chairman Young, Vice Chairman Ritter, Ranking Member Abdul Ali, and members of the House Workforce and Higher Education Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on Ohio's science of reading standards. My name is Eric Porofelli, and I serve as professor and interim dean of the College of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University. I've served in the college for eight years, and I've been in the interim dean role for two whole months. I'm pleased to provide an update on our ongoing efforts at Ohio State to prepare future educators with the knowledge and skills necessary to ensure that Ohio children are learning to read well. Let me begin by saying that we are grateful for the opportunity to partner with the governor and the general assembly to improve childhood literacy in our state. As Ohio's flagship university, we take our role in this partnership seriously and are dedicated to achieving this goal. In our college, we strive to prepare excellent teachers with strong backgrounds in science-based literacy practices that will help all Ohio children learn to read. At Ohio State it is not our goal to simply comply with the science of reading standards We aim to strengthen our leadership and programs in this space This is a quality of life imperative for Ohio children and families as well as an educational imperative And it is a workforce and competitiveness imperative for our state. When all of our children can read and our teachers are prepared to support them, Ohio can grow and thrive to its fullest potential. To that end, I am pleased with the progress we have made. As you may recall, the annual state audit found that Ohio State's pre-service teacher program meets 100% of Ohio's required science of reading metrics. That means we were fully compliant with preparing teachers to use science of reading aligned practices. The audit commended our program for offering, quote, multiple opportunities to apply evidence-based instructional practices in field settings with structured guidance, timely feedback, and meaningful reflection, end quote. This outcome was a result of more than a year of careful, systematic review of our coursework, spanning more than 65 course sections across five campuses and four schools and colleges. The audit also identified eight limited instances where our legacy curricular materials did not fully align with science of reading standards. In these rare cases, outdated materials had not been fully removed from a syllabus or course materials list, and they represent well under 1% of our total curriculum devoted to reading. When we learned of the challenges identified in the audit, we moved quickly and effectively to remove or update the out-of-alignment materials so that we were fully compliant with science of reading standards by Ohio Department of Higher Education's deadline of December 3, 2025. We're committed to making improvements to ensure consistency of our course content and materials across all Ohio State campuses and instructors. I'm very pleased to share that we have effectively mobilized our academic community to implement an annual process to continuously review and strengthen our science of reading instruction, ensuring that our work goes beyond compliance to meaningfully enhance the quality of our programs and provide the very best possible learning experiences for our aspiring educators. I also wish to affirm that our instructors understand the requirement to use approved course syllabi for pre-service teacher literacy and reading endorsement courses to maintain an approved program in Ohio. At the same time, we're intentionally building structures to support instructors to meet these expectations while ensuring that all education preparation students receive comparable, high-quality learning experiences regardless of the campus they attend. We will also ensure that all courses across all campuses are supported by master syllabi with topical outlines mapped to objectives and readings, consistent rubrics for all assignments, and instructional materials to support instructors. This includes presentation materials, digital learning modules, and current master course templates used across all courses and sections. Concurrently, we're developing a comprehensive professional learning framework to emphasize the importance of ongoing participation in professional learning and to ensure instructors remain current with emerging research and evidence-based practices in the science of reading. We will submit our plans for these revisions to the state audit team by March 31st of 2026, with revisions submitted for the Chancellor's approval by the end of June of the same year. What I'm most excited about is where we're headed in the future. Looking ahead, the College's focus is on deepening the impact of this work beyond our university and into our classrooms where Ohio's children are learning to read every day. We are continuing to strengthen collaboration with our P-12 partner schools and districts to better align our preparation and instructional approaches with the state-approved resources being used in the schools where our candidates are placed At the same time we expanding opportunities to support ongoing professional development for early childhood and elementary educators and offering targeted tutoring and instructional support for students who experience difficulty learning to read. Together, these efforts reflect our commitment not only preparing future teachers but to supporting the broader literacy ecosystem across the state. We want Ohio State to be at the forefront of early childhood in adolescent literacy research and education. And so I'm very pleased to share with you that Ohio State is in the early stages of launching a bold new Science of Teaching Reading initiative. Led by one of the nation's experts in early childhood literacy, Dr. Shane Piasta, this initiative, along with the work of ODEW and other colleges and universities across the state, will continue to position Ohio as a model for implementing the elements of the science of reading and preparing the next generation of teachers. Dr. Piasta's research focuses on early literacy development and how it is best supported during preschool and elementary years based on rigorous empirical methods. She also identifies teacher, classroom, and other factors associated with children's literacy gains. Her work has set early literacy learning standards and has been adopted by Head Start along with various local, state, and national organizations. Under Dr. Piasta's leadership, this new literacy initiative will expand research, teaching, and application of evidence-based practices in teacher education and PK-8 literacy instruction. Our plans include recruiting additional faculty and redesigning and creating new courses. We will also expand professional development opportunities for our faculty and our pre-service and in-service teachers to deepen our outreach and impact in the communities we serve. We see this as a win for our students, faculty, and most importantly, Ohio's children. Our students will gain valuable hands-on experience so that they are prepared as scholars and educators in the science of reading. Faculty will benefit from new opportunities to pursue professional development and research collaboration. Children and families will benefit from community-engaged scholarship that directly addresses the literacy needs of our community. This is truly Ohio State's land-grant mission brought to life. OSU faculty and students collaborating with local schools to implement literacy practices that will improve learning outcomes for our state's youngest children. Ohio State is committed to setting the national standard for putting the science of reading into action. That's a great credit to our state leaders who have held us to a high bar in addressing literacy. Again, I want to thank you for your focus and leadership in this important work. We are making meaningful strides together with more success to come. Thank you for your time, and with that, I would be happy to answer any questions. I'm joined by Dr. Binet Subedi, Professor and Interim Chair of the Department of Teaching and Learning, who can assist me in responding in light of my two months on the job.
Are there any questions? I have some. Thank you very much, Doctor. You had indicated that you had achieved the 73 out of 73 in alignment, but there were 17 issues that they addressed, and you said that there were only eight. And I do have a list of many of them, and just to let you know, you know and understand what hangs in the balance, correct? Yes. And I want to come away from this committee meeting here because there was another interim dean when we brought everyone forward last year to outline what we were going to do and the audit was going to take place and now we have another interim dean And so my concern is how seriously Ohio State is taking this process. And by the way I look at it, you're not taking it very seriously at all. and I want to address a few questions, but there are many lengthy ones, and I would like to have them submitted to you, and I would like to have a written response because, like I said, things hang into balance here, and I'm very serious about this, and I'm not going to play games with it. So the first one that I'd like you to answer is they gave you mandatory recommendations. Revise course content to ensure alignment with evidence-based literacy instruction. That's the number one issue with this legislation. Would you like to comment on that?
Thank you, Chairman Young. So firstly, I want to emphasize that Ohio State University is taking this seriously. And I can attest to the fact that our faculty, our staff, our administrators from the foundation of the department with Dr. Binet-Subady, through the dean's office, the provost's office, the president's office, and the board of trustees are all in alignment with the commitment to be in alignment with the state standards. As I mentioned in my remarks, clearly we missed several items. I appreciate you citing that at 17. And when we were informed by the auditors that, in fact, those were the issues, we mobilized quickly and addressed all 17. And then within, I believe it was two weeks, our provost attested, our president attested to being in full alignment with the standards, both in terms of the science of reading standards as well as removing content that was not in alignment with the state standards. And B'nai, would you like to comment?
Yeah, thank you, Chairman Young.
We are very serious, obviously, and when the auditors visited us, we went one by one item that were addressed, that were talked about in the audit report, the books, the PowerPoints. So we are very committed to this. I know our provost is too as well. And we've had professional development every week this semester with faculty, and we have really organized to develop curriculum so that it fully aligns with science of reading based in Ohio.
I have another one that I want to read, and this is another critical part. when we have the other universities come forward and show their true commitment with just a slight mistake or a slight error. This is one that bothers me. Develop and implement an ongoing professional development plan for leadership and faculty, including professors, lecturers, graduate teaching associates, to deepen understanding of evidence-based literacy practices, address misconceptions and ensure accurate implementation of the Ohio Revised Code across the Columbus campus and regional campuses. And you just said that you were starting to implement that process. So here we find material. and evidence-based learning, and here we look at it from the standpoint of the entire faculty and every single person that touches a student on campus, the main campus, and the branch campuses. If you were sitting in my chair, you would be concerned. Are you not concerned?
We are concerned, and starting last semester after the audit report, we have systematically reorganized our curriculum, and we have, as Dr. Porfily pointed out, we have one of the foremost researchers in the country, Dr. Shane Piazza, is leading this effort. And we have had professional developments every week, as I mentioned earlier, and it's based on all faculty who are in the literacy and reading. It's also based on courses. It's also based on individual professional development. So we have a comprehensive plan moving forward, and we're going to have a curriculum approval sometime in summer so that all courses are properly vetted they assessed so that we don have one book chapter that may address 3Qing or PowerPoint that may address some of the issues that are prohibited in Ohio. So we're working really hard, and we're very confident that our program will be very strong. Our faculty are very committed on this, and we're very much committed to the Ohio science of reading. And Chairman Young, let me also add a point of emphasis, which is we are committed to adapting our curriculum, our professional development, and our engagement in K-12 education to be fully in alignment with the science of reading. But as I also mentioned in my remarks, we are committed to establishing a leadership position, and this will come with appreciable investments, financial investments, investments in personnel, investments in time and effort, so that we get to a place where hopefully in the future when we have conversations with this body or with you individually, we going to be sharing the good news of becoming innovators and leaders in this space But clearly clearly this audit process was a catalyst an important catalyst for us to envision that future and start acting on it
I appreciate that, and I know that the Chancellor's done an excellent job and his staff, and they'll follow through with these questions because this committee will be watching this. Look, this is very important for our state. We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars to this process. It is critical. And when we saw the experts come forward to show the evidence-based methods that do work and that we continue to see illiterate children in our schools, it just makes me sick. We're asking you to lead. We're asking everyone in this process to lead. That's what we have to do. Committing to it is okay but there has to be action and you have to lead And that what I want to leave you with today and I really appreciate you coming Oh you have a question Go ahead Representative
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I'd just like to make a follow-up comment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Ohio State, our Buckeyes, we appreciate you, and I hear you stepping up to say you will be accountable, and I do appreciate our Chairman's comments. I just want you to know that we need all universities in compliance, or we risk incongruity of literacy outcomes throughout the state for our kids. So Ohio State, you cannot drag on this issue. And we will be following up and making sure with accountability. And I really respect you enough and believe you will take action. And so I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me those comments.
Thank you, Representative. Without any more questions, the House Workforce and Higher Education Committee is hereby adjourned.