October 29, 2003

RAISE THE BAR:

MEAP SUCCESS: Holding kids back seems to pay off (PEGGY WALSH-SARNECKI, October 8, 2003, Detroit Free Press)

Poor MEAP test scores used to go hand-in-hand with poor students at Algonac's Pte. Tremble Elementary, where about one-fourth of the kids qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch. But four years ago, leaders in Algonac and Yale schools linked reading with passing. Kids in grades K-3 who weren't reading at grade level would flunk. And they meant all kids, including those in special education.

The idea sparked controversy and jitters among parents and teachers. T.J. Bucholz, until recently a spokesman for the Michigan Department of Education, said he hadn't heard of another district with a similar plan.

When MEAP scores were released Friday, 95 percent of Pte. Tremble's fourth-graders met or beat the state's reading standards.

Four years ago, only slightly more than half of the school's fourth-graders met the state's standards. Officials in the two St. Clair County districts say the Michigan Educational Assessment Program test results justify their leap of faith. In both districts, 83 percent of fourth-graders met the state's expectations in reading, up from 55 percent in Algonac Community Schools and 65 percent in Yale Public Schools in 1999. They also came in ahead of the state average, 75 percent.

The theory was simple: All kids can learn, but some kids need a little more time. The districts' challenge was to make sure children got that time. Failing a school year isn't a good option, but being unable to read is worse, educators thought. [...]

School officials had to face down more than a few angry parents. Some even moved their children to other districts.

"We learned from the time of trials and tribulations," Darin said.

But slowly, parents were won over. Michael Schrader, 7, barely met the minimum first-grade reading requirements last spring. His teachers suggested summer school to help him begin second grade with more confidence.

His mother, Lisa Schrader, said her initial reaction was that her son wouldn't have much of a summer. But the former preschool teacher knew children can forget skills over the summer and agreed to send Michael.

"I'm absolutely glad we did it," Schrader said. "I can already see the difference this year. He seems more confident. He takes more risks in terms of reading things that are not familiar to him.

"I don't think parents want to be told your child is going to be retained, that's a hard thing to hear," Schrader said. "But you know as a parent, if your son or daughter is struggling, you want what's best for them." Risk pays off.


This is what President Bush meant by "the soft bigotry of low expectations".

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 29, 2003 07:24 AM
Comments

We had our son repeat second grade. He got tutoring and ended up learning to read.

It turned out he had mild dyslexia of some type, though no very precise diagnosis was ever made.

So far, so good.

No Child left Behind would neither have identified him nor helped him. It's more complicated that Bush imagines.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 29, 2003 03:12 PM

The idea behind No Child Left Behind is that it would spur schools on to do more things like this, not that it would be a magical panacea to fix all ills. Bush recognizes that it's too complicated for the Federal government to fix, which is why he's coercing the states and districts to do it.

Posted by: Timothy at October 29, 2003 03:52 PM

The fundamental idea is to set and maintain meaningful standards. Doing so guts the astonishingly ridiculous notion of "social promotion," which would be laughable if it hadn't done so much damage.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at October 29, 2003 05:09 PM

I agree it's too complicated for the federal government to fix (and besides, it's a local function). But No Child Left Behind has no flexibility and its mensuration system is a fraud.

If the system needs fixing, Bush is not going to get the job done.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 29, 2003 08:19 PM

I would extend Algonac and Yale's policy nationwide.
Literacy is the foundation for most knowledge, and to advance students who cannot read is remarkably foolish.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 29, 2003 08:57 PM

I am dumbfounded by the attitude of many parents at my wife's school, who see any learning difficulties in their children as completely correctible if only the teachers and school would find and make the right "accommodation." The negotiating games and Oprah-speak that swirl around these battles are amazing.

Harry is right that the issue is complex and individualistic (welcome to life!), but one root of this problem is the modern, neurotic belief that love means telling the child that he/she is perfect and will prevail against all the meanies who try to thwart his/her destiny. It leads to some very lost and unhappy children.

Also, it also astounds me how many parents of grade 3-6 kids seem uninterested in what or how much the kids are actually learning. They are still swept up with kindergarten-level concerns about "peer relations" or "motor skills" or some such other nonesense. I don't like teachers' unions, but the life of a modern conscientious teacher can be an exhausting, demoralizing hell.

Posted by: Peter B at October 30, 2003 05:34 AM

Harry,

Your comment about menstruation is way off-topic!!

Posted by: John J. Coupal at October 30, 2003 11:36 AM
« THE WEDGE SHOULDN'T SEPARATE YOU FROM THE VOTERS: | Main | TEN WAS TOO MANY: »