Are Ohio’s teaching colleges indoctrination centers for state-ordered thoughts on reading?

Governor Mike DeWine’s reading education revolution has taken an extreme turn, according to hosts of Today in Ohio, who criticized a recent state audit that penalized colleges for merely mentioning alternative teaching strategies.

Wednesday’s episode featured a discussion about ten Ohio colleges – including Cleveland State University, Ohio State University, and Ohio University – that were flagged for not complying with the state’s new science of reading requirements. The reason? Their teacher education programs dared to include materials mentioning alternative reading instruction approaches.

“In CSU’s case here, they met 72 out of 73 metrics measured,” explained host Courtney Astolfi. “That one section where they fell short, according to the university, came down to a single textbook that was in use that included some literacy teaching methods that weren’t science of reading.”

Podcast hosts questioned the wisdom of such a restrictive approach to teacher education.

“I’m really bothered by the closed mindedness of this,” said Chris Quinn, comparing the situation to training baristas but only teaching them one method of making coffee. “If I’m learning to teach reading, why shouldn’t I know about the other philosophies of how to do it? Even though we’re focused in Ohio right now on one, we’re not going to let teachers know about the other ways that get there.”

The hosts emphasized they were not opposing the state’s required science of reading approach, but rather questioning why future teachers can’t even be exposed to the existence of alternative methods. The restriction, they argued, fundamentally undermines the purpose of higher education.

“What kind of colleges are we having when we’re locking out free thought?” Quinn asked.

Astolfi called the policy “draconian” and highlighted practical concerns about the long-term consequences: “You don’t know what’s coming down the road. What if the state changes again in 10 years? Are all these teachers left in the dark?”

The conversation expanded to broader concerns about academic freedom and the purpose of education. Quinn drew a parallel to other forms of ideological restrictions: “We believe in democracy, so should our colleges not have any mention of societies that are communist or socialist or what have you? I mean, we don’t want people to understand that there are different forms of governance.”

The hosts also noted that different teaching methods might be necessary for different learning situations, particularly in special education. By restricting teacher knowledge to only the state-approved approach, educators may be ill-equipped to help students who don’t respond to the standard method. By creating teachers who know only one methodology, Ohio may be producing educators less prepared to adapt to the diverse needs of their future students.

Listen to the discussion here.