Angie Sullivan teaches elementary school in Clark County, Nevada (Las Vegas). Most of her children are poor and ELL. She writes often about the disastrous policies imposed on the schools by the legislature.
Angie writes:
Read-by-Three is upon us. Ready to damage disenfranchised kids because as Assemblyman Elliot Anderson stated: They need “tough love”.
I will note here poor children need a lot of things – “tough love” isn’t one of the things.
Basically read-by-three requires students to read on grade level by third grade or they are not promoted to the next grade.
Do you see the fatal flaws?
1. Not research based or proven effective – academically or politically
2. Money diverted so it does not reach the kids who need it the most.
3. Money spent on people who are not directly teaching kids.
4. Language learners and IEP students in double jeopardy without access or support
Let me explain:
A century of education research proving retention does NOT work should be enough.
Simply: Whole group learning did not work the first time so the remedy should not be another year of whole group learning. Repetition of a grade level, without a significant change in the method of instruction does not work. Real remedies would include smaller class-size, differentiated instruction, language learning scaffolding if necessary, or individualized support like tutoring in small groups. The worst possible remedy is blanket retention for large masses of at-risk studennts.
States like Florida which have used this destructive program – are now regretting it. Data shows it failed badly. Academically and politically.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/16-student-retention-west
Besides the complete failure of this education policy – Nevada presses forward intent on replication of bad policies of other states.
To add insult to injury, the program is grant based. The Northern school districts applied and received most of the funding. Now Clark County which has 80% of the at-risk primary students will only receive 47% of the money to support kids so they are not retained. While 20% of the children in rural Nevada will receive the bulk of the money and possibly avoid the punitive result.
With the inequitable funding Clark County receives, CCSD is hiring many “read-by-three” strategists. Again – this does not change the method of instructional delivery. Another teacher who is not working with directly with students? This has been very ineffective and tried many times by the district. Teachers who are not assigned students often are assigned lunchroom tasks, playground duty, and paperwork by adminstrators. Very few specialists are effective because they do not work with kids.
Supposedly language learners and students with IEPs will be “exempt”.
Which shows a further flaw, since parents who often do not have an e-mail address must navigate the enrollment system in Infinite Campus accurately identifying their child as LEP. Parents who do not speak English or regularly use the Internet get limited support to go through this process. Accuracy of data in the system is questionable and I have seen many young children enrolling themselves in school because they are the person in the family who uses a computer regularly. Identification is complex and inaccurate.
Also if certain students are “exempt” will they be ignored? Is it better to not mark accurately so a child may receive instruction? Even if this means jeopardy? This is an unintentional result of placing pressure on students and kids. Schools will focus on kids to avoid retention while not focusing on others. Especially when working in a system which is not appropriately funded. Limited resources and too many at-risk kids means tough choices which are unfortunate need to be made.
This is a big civil rights and access problem. Along with being seriously flawed legislation.
It will cost millions of tax payer dollars.
Listening to teachers could have prevented this destruction.
Now teachers will have to make do – while “tough love” lawmakers brag about putting needed information in spam. I hope the campaign donation from reformers was worth it for the assembly democrats.
Reformers enjoy disruption. Disruption is teaching zero kids. It is just destructive.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Ignorance is not bliss; it is destructive. Nevada’s policies are based test and punish bias and irrational assumptions about students they do not understand. Nevada needs a crash course in understanding both ELLs and students with disabilities. Both of these groups are protected classes. Students with disabilities should be served in compliance with the IDEA laws, and ELLs are subject to civil rights laws. If the state refuses to implement evidence based policies, parents should seek relief in the courts. The Education Law Center or the League of Women Voters may be able to assist distressed parents although it may take a long time to see results. Parents should also lobby local representatives and organize protests to get public opinion on their side. Unfortunately, there is chaos when the ignorant and dishonest are put in positions of power.
States like Florida which have used this destructive program – are now regretting it. Data shows it failed badly. Academically and politically.
[…]
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/08/16-student-retention-west
The Brookings article that she cites doesn’t appear to give much support to Angie’s contention that “Data shows it failed badly.” But it does support her view that ” Repetition of a grade level, without a significant change in the method of instruction does not work.” It states:
“Policies encouraging the retention of students who have not acquired basic reading skills by third grade are no substitute for the development of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the number of struggling readers. Yet the best available evidence indicates that policies that include appropriate interventions for retained students may well be a useful component of a comprehensive strategy.”
It doesn’t matter what “intervention” is used after retention, retention itself is toxic. Whatever the intention behind it, students who are retained experience it as a humiliating punishment. Their peers move on, they don’t. Now they’re left behind in a class full of younger kids. They are the oldest and biggest kid in the class. Everyone knows they got flunked and they get labeled (and label themselves) as the “dumb one”. It’s virtually impossible for kids to recover socially and emotionally from being retained. Such labeling very often translates into behavioral acting out as kids struggle with self-image and belonging issues. Many kids who are held back end up dropping out. What kind of “intervention” is going to compete with all of that?
Adding another layer of toxicity is the fact that as these children move from level to level with varying skills, the modern-day Blame The Teachers game uses labeling, humiliation and job-dismissal to force an immovable, everybody on the same page standardization.
I share a lot of your concern and skepticism, Dienne, re: grade-level retention, though not to this degree: “It’s virtually impossible for kids to recover socially and emotionally from being retained.” The Brookings article, which I found very helpfully informative, certainly makes me wonder whether similar, but perhaps earlier, “interventions” without retention might have any even more positive effect.
Research has shown that retained students are much more likely to become drop-outs. Retention punishes rather than helps students. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=children-who-repeated-a-grade
“Research has shown that retained students are much more likely to become drop-outs.”
True. But I don’t think the research supports a blanket opposition to retention in virtually all circumstances.
As Robert Balfanz and Nettie Legters of Johns Hopkins stated in “Locating the Dropout Crisis”.
Pg 47: “Absent a strong and sustained intervention, there is little evidence that students who failed to be promoted to the tenth grade will right themselves by simply being given a second try (Roderick et al., 1998).”
Here in Boston some of the charter schools have much higher 5-year than 4-year graduation rates, e.g., there’s this showing Boston Prep 4-year graduation rate of 66.7% and 5-year graduation rate of 92.3%:
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/grad/grad_report.aspx?orgcode=04160000&orgtypecode=5&fycode=2014
and this showing MATCH Charter with a 4-year graduation rate of 66.7% and a 5-year graduation rate of 90.3%: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/grad/grad_report.aspx?orgcode=04690000&orgtypecode=5&
Perhaps that’s reflective of “a strong and sustained intervention.”
Seriously? You’re comparing graduating high school in 5 years to being retained in third grade? Don’t know much about kids, do you?
“Seriously? You’re comparing graduating high school in 5 years to being retained in third grade? Don’t know much about kids, do you?”
I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that grade-level retention of a 9th grader is inherently far less damaging than retention of a third grader?
I don’t have a well-informed opinion on that and would be interested in your evidence. It would seem to run counter to the Brookings study that Angie cited, which stated: “These mixed results… also suggest that early grade retention may be more beneficial for students than retention in later grades. To the extent that this is true, Florida students retained in the third grade who otherwise would have been retained later may have particularly benefited from the state’s test-based promotion policy.”
There are two definitions for “tough love”.
One definition uses the term “tough love” to mask actual abuse, and the other describes parents who say “no” to their children when “no” is necessary during the child’s maturing process — this tough love doesn’t include cruelty and abuse.
Read-by-third-grade is an example of the abusive definition of “Tough Love”.
Only parents that love their children and say “no” out of love even if it hurts them to say “no” to the child they love can use “tough love” appropriately. Anyone outside of the family that throws the “tough love” term around is a fraud, a bully and a coward and should be drawn and quartered.
Excellent distinction, Lloyd.
Notice that those calling for “tough love” are calling for it for other folk’s children.
Tony Bennett sold this garbage to the Ohio legislature. The knuckleheads in Columbus adopted it, and Bennett was shown the door in Indiana. At this point, the no-nothings in the State House and ODE have no idea what to do with this law.
Our oldest sun, an award-winning lawyer, couldn’t read at all until he was in third grade. Then, things began to change for him. Yes, he had a good teacher, but more important, he became intrested in books. He quickly caught on to the way written language works and, after that there was no stopping him. I must add that comic books were a powerful motivator and assistant in his reading progress. But, I also credit his 3rd grade teacher who never thought of holding him back in that grade, plus his father and myself who made sure that he had on hand the kinds of materials he wanted to read throughout his development years.
This “Touch Love” business as regards the teaching of reading is grounded in ignorant people’s gut feeling. Numerous researchers have studied how people/children learn and then applied it to the teaching of reading. For years we have had researchers working at developing an approach that would meet the needs of the At Risk students- the type of student that is retained in these states that mandate “Read by Third.” Why don’t the people who develop policies and laws do their research? We have a most successful approach to teaching the “At Risk” developed by the late Marie Clay of New Zealand.
Marie Clay: Teacher, researcher, author, and champion of young readers
http://readingrecovery.org/reading-recovery/teaching-children/marie-clay
If the legislature really cared about our young people, they would fund the necessary training for Reading Recovery teachers. Children come with many different talents, skills and background. The “cookie-cutter” approach can never work. Some children have been read to from day one. Others have parents who can not read. Common sense tells us that we have to teach children at their instructional level- not their grade level.
I had a non-English speaking student in Sept. He sat in silence for a few weeks. Even the bilingual psychologist thought he might be mentally challenged. He gain two academic years in one school year because he was instructed on his level which rapidly kept changing. Because he developed confidence and a desire to learn he made unbelievable strides. He was supported in his efforts not punished. I was not trained in Reading Recovery but I observed Reading Recovery teachers and did my homework.
We also have the Literacy Collaborative and Leveled Literacy Intervention programs.
Leveled Literacy Intervention was developed by Gay Su Pinnell and Irene Fountas. “It is an intensive, small group intervention designed to accelerate the literacy development of K–3 & 3–6 students who are below grade level in reading and writing achievement. Explicit instruction is provided in the five essential components of reading identified by the National Reading Panel: phonological awareness, decoding, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. “
It is anchored in Marie Clay’s philosophy and methodology.
http://www.lcosu.org/lli.html
Literacy Collaborative is “a comprehensive school reform initiative designed to improve the reading, writing, and language skills of elementary children. School-based literacy coordinators are trained in research-based methods; provided with ongoing professional development as they continually implement research-based approaches in their own classrooms; and supported as they provide on-site professional development and training for the teachers in their schools.”
It too is anchored in Marie Clay’s philosophy and methodology.
http://www.lcosu.org/
Essential to every successful reading program is the guiding of students on their instructional level. The level at which the student makes no more than 10 errors per hundred running words and comprehends 60-75%. Common Core, however, want children to be instructed at times on a frustration level – a level at which they will struggle. This approach will only cause harm and regression. Common Core is anchored in the gut feeling of a “Work Group” of business people. What can you expect from such a group?
Thanks for sharing that, Mary. Seems a very impressive set of programs. I am curious as to how widespread they are currently in the USA. Do you happen to have a sense of that? Thanks.
And they probably have no plans to screen for dyslexia.
RageAgainstTheTetsocracy, who are you referring to when you say,
“And they probably have no plans to screen for dyslexia.”
There has been an unbelievable rise in children being labeled Learning Disabled which is an umbrella term but to me it appears to include anyone who is not scoring well on the aligned CC standardized tests.
Children from educated families who missed the burden of the CC mandates are at college and achieving very well; their siblings got snagged by CC and its invalid testing. It appears to me that teachers realized that some students are achievers but just don’t pass that test. If they are labeled they won’t have to be retained or some other hidden reason. To me this surge of students being labeled as LD-is a red flag. I have my feelers out in various school districts on the island including with parents and grandparents. All too often I hear, “My child is LD… He just can’t do the work…“
Balderdash! 9 chances out of 10 they don’t have a leaning problem; they have the yoke of CC and its aligned testing bogging them down.
Students come with all kinds of skills and talents. All too often their talents have not been discovered because art, music, and even gym have either been curtailed or eliminated. Reading standards are inappropriate and some even harmful. How and when are we going to boost their self-image and give them the confidence and desire to learn instead of tearing them down. I am appalled how ruthless authorities are with our children’s lives. We need educators to develop the standards – not the corporate world -people controlled Pearson or Gates.
I can’t believe this surge of LD children is all due to Monsanto’s poison we feed our children.
We all know that the standardized tests aligned with the CCStandards are invalid, abusive, and do not give a true reading score of students. This issue has been discussed numerous times. Opting out is one way to begin to protect our children from being demoralized. But we need to do much more: get rid of the CCS and especially all this asinine testing.
I will start by saying that my comment is not based on knowledge I read from a book but from knowledge I learned from being a parent. Lots of people like to make opinions based on other people’s opinions and I find it rather annoying how society is so quick to put eveything under a huge rug. So from my understanding if a child is struggling with material he/she is not grasping the smartest thing is to move him/she forward to try and learn more difficult material? Your worried about them being retain and being labled? How about instilling some self values, how about teaching your child to excercise the idea that other people’s opinion doesnt matter? What if you did your job as a parent and have daily talks with your kids and let them know that your best is not always your friends best and vice versa? Stop spoiling kids and teach them that there are rude, mean people in the world and give them advice with how to deal with them. Because the sad, honest truth is that sooner or later they will run into the mean buggy kid and the best thing you can do is prepare them so they know how to react. The honest truth is thatvthey probably will be labeled if they get retained or not so the best you can do as a parent is know where they are and where they want to be. If your child is struggling don’t be ashamed to let them repeat the grade.
Stephen Ronan, you asked if I had an idea of how widespread the Constructivists programs are currently in the USA. If I happen to have a sense of that?
Through deductive reasoning, one might get some idea of how many teachers are free to use Marie Clay’s methodology and of those few teachers how many are trained in the program.
During Bush’s term the powers that be, maneuvered the situation to lock out programs anchored in the Constructivist approach such as Reading Recovery. Reading First Program was adopted – a Behaviorist’s approach.
Only the five states that did not sign on to the CC would have been free to adopt a Constructivist based reading program such as Marie Clay’s but that doesn’t mean they did. Five more have since opted out of the CCSS. Some of these states still mandate the high stakes testing such as Texas almost forcing teachers to use the Behaviorist approach.
Besides adhering to the Behaviorist approach Common Core denies academic freedom. It denies the teachers the freedom to utilize their God given talents to be creative in skillfully developing new concepts. Had I been under the yoke of CC when I had that ESL student that I referred to, I could never have made met his needs and make such great strides. Multiple techniques, strategies, and material were used including getting his parents support – another story. Scripted texts – devised by the corporate world- would have prohibited my approach. Plus in some school the administration expects to find all teachers on the same page when they make their surprise visits.
Besides the phonetic approach, other directives emphasizes that meaning is found in the text- not in the interaction with the students’ experience and background.
One of CC standards states,
(CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.3.1)
“Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.”
That directive/standard is directly contrary to the methodology of the Constructivists
The Constructivist methodology such as Marie Clay’s, utilized semantics, syntax, along with phonics. Marie Clay’s and other Constructivists focus is on supporting active learners by engaging all the senses, interacting with the text and responding to the text.
Marie Clay believed in teaching to a child’s strengths, not to their weaknesses, viz, connecting their experiences and background to the text. Activating background knowledge is crucial to the Constructivists not so with the CCSS.
So to answer your question, Stephen, I can only surmise that few teachers are free or are trained to use the Constructivist method in teaching reading.
Thanks, Mary, that’s helpful background. Much appreciated! And thanks to your initial link I was interested to find some people in my state listed in the Reading Recovery Teacher Leader Registry at https://members.readingrecovery.org/members/directory/search_RRCN.php, including one at a school where a friend works. I look forward to following up and learning more.