CedarPundit wrote me to say that Iowa is considering legislation to help end social promotion for third-graders - and the hysterical editorials have already begun.
CP links to the actual bill (ain't the blogosphere wonderful?), which makes it clear that the idea is to assess and correct students as early as possible, the better to avoid having to promote to fourth-grade those third-graders who are reading a year or more below grade level. If I read it correctly, separate standards may be set for Limited English Proficiency and special education students, and multiple assessments will be used to decide whether students should be held back.
All of which makes the Des Moines editorial appear even sillier:
Here's an idea that looks good on paper but would be devastating in the real world: a state law mandating Iowa third-graders reading more than one year below grade level be forced to repeat the third grade.
And why would this be devastating? Because what's been done all along in Iowa - where, as the author admits, only 77% of high school students read at grade level - is working just fine:
Iowa has trusted local school districts - principals, parents and teachers - to decide what's best for a particular student. That's worked well for Iowa over the years, as evidenced by the fact that this state has some of the best public schools in the country...
Iowa Department of Education Director Ted Stilwill said the legislation doesn't acknowledge there are many variables that go into deciding whether a child should repeat a grade.
"You want to look at the maturity of a child, and what's gone on in the previous year. Some kids go through things at home that throw them off-kilter for a year. Right now, the decision [to hold a child back] is made with the parents and teacher. For the state to make that decision based on a single test score is not right," said Stilwill.
The legislation says nothing about basing the decision on a single test score. The legislation does suggest that decisions about whether to promote should be based on assessments that are much less slippery than judgements about "maturity" and the teacher understanding "what's gone on in the previous year."
He also said research on this issue is clear: "Holding back a kid because he's not being successful leads to those kids tending to be less successful."
Emphasis mine. Research on the issue is not clear, because any correlation between being held back early on and poor performance later on doesn't necessarily mean that being held back causes poor later performance. An underlying lack of aptitude could very easily cause both. Without an experimental design in which kids are randomly assigned to being held back or promoted - and this will never happen - there's no way to prove that being held back causes later problems to occur.
If no changes are made to the third-grade curriculum - which is not what's being suggested in this bill - then repeating a grade may not help a kid. But promoting them to the fourth grade won't help, either.
Especially troubling is just how many Iowa students could be affected by the proposal. The Iowa Department of Education estimates about 4,400 third-graders could be forced to repeat third grade if the legislation becomes law. That's about 13 percent of Iowa third-graders...
Can anyone tell me why the standard reaction to this kind of news is to rush to condemn the retention policy? Yes, it's troubling that 13% of non-disabled, non-LEP third-graders in Iowa might be held back, because it means that by third grade, 13% of them are already that far behind. Isn't that something you'd think the Des Moines Register editorial staff might want to, you know, address?
Everyone wants children to become good readers. It's the foundation of learning. The best way to do that is to provide the resources schools need to offer enough help to children. It's having well-funded Reading Recovery programs. It's not burdening teachers with so much mandatory testing that they don't have any time to work one on one with students who need assistance. It's doing more to encourage reading at home and having well-stocked school and community libraries.
Other than the bogus burdening line, nothing in here is incompatible with what's in the bill. How is more and earlier assessment for reading difficulties incompatible with encouraging students to read at home? Or is the assumption that testing destroys all love of reading?
The answer is not automatically forcing a third-grader - an 8- or 9-year-old child who has formed friendships with classmates and may have other problems that need to be addressed - to return to the same classroom the next year. A decision that drastic must be left to parents and educators who know the child.
Oh, I get it. The most important thing is not whether Johnny can read, but whether Johnny should be separated from Jack and Jill. Because ultimately those friendships are what will help Johnny get the most from his high school, college, and employment experience.
And you have to love that part about leaving the decision to the parents and educators - isn't the assumption there that the test scores will always disagree with what the parents and teachers decide? The idea that objective test scores might help teachers and parents to make better, more informed decisions is not considered within the realm of possibility, apparently.
Sadly, the Cedar Rapids Gazette folks rushed to find critics of the bill as well, to which CP can attest. Their site requires a subscription, so I'll quote what CP quoted, which is pretty much all opposition speech, and incredibly hyperbolic at that:
"This is a medieval, punitive approach that could damage children," said Sen. Mike Connolly, D-Dubuque.
I'm reading a book on the Middle Ages right now, and I could swear there's nothing in there about retaining third-graders who don't read very well....
Iowa City Superintendent Lane Plugge said the proposal is not in the best interest of students.
Third graders can be as much as 24 months apart in age and still have very different rates for academic growth, he said. He considers mandatory retention, a process seldom used in the district, as having harmful social and academic implications.
Um, if this is true, wouldn't mandatory promotion have the ability to do as much harm? If third-graders vary that much, then by definition aren't some of them not ready for fourth grade?
"A high-stakes requirement is not going to help kids learn," said Plugge.
It's not supposed to. You see, the tests identify which kids need extra help, in a way that is fair and objective. The teachers are still responsible for the "helping kids learn" part.
Department of Education spokesman Jeff Berger said the department opposes the measure because research indicates "retention has nothing to do with performance" and creating a no-promotion requirement likely would "do more harm than good."
Wait, I thought research was "clear" that retention definitely, absolutely, in and of itself caused later academic problems. And now we're hearing that retention has nothing to do with performance.
As I said, I couldn't read the article without a subscription, so I have to go by what CP quoted. And what he listed were quotes from two superintendents, a Democratic senator, and a DOE spokesman. If, as the Des Moines Register claims, the decision to retain or promote should be left solely up to the parents and teachers, why weren't any parents or teachers asked for their opinions on this bill?
CP, by the way, is infuriated:
Where's the proof?
Where's the proof that holding children back for a year to focus improving a child's reading skills is somehow "harmful" or "nonsense"?
I bet if we fast-forward to all the kids who are dropping out or are in "alternative high schools" we'll find quite a few of them who are not reading at grade level. What do you want to bet?
Allowing children to advance to another grade level without the ability or skills to do the work is nothing short of child abuse.
Posted by kswygert at March 10, 2004 04:19 PM