Yes, Oklahoma has a
third-grade flunk law, along with several other
ALEC states. Our politicians are very proud of it. Educators are appalled and horrified. We understand NO ONE should have his or her future dependent on one test, one day in April. But, Jeb Bush wants it and Janet Barresi is happy to oblige.
While the law was being debated in the OK House of Representatives, a colleague and I exchanged letters with its author, Representative Sally Kern. She got distracted by another of her
foot-in-mouth episodes after one response and didn't write again, but we all knew the bill would become law despite our concerns.
I now share our letter, and Rep. Kern's response in the hopes of bringing this issue to the front of everyone's mind. I'm leaving all the different fonts to help the reader move from one to another letter.
This year, third graders WILL fail. They will be held back despite what their parents, their teachers, their administrators, know is the right thing for them. They WILL fail. And the first child who is labeled as a failure will be OUR failure. Our complacency will create chaos in the schools.
If you are a parent of a third grader, the grandparent, the aunt or uncle...if you are a neighbor of a third grader...if you attend church with parents of third graders, you must act. Contact your Legislators and howl. Long, loud. Our children need you.
Michale Gentry's and my letter to Representative Sally Kern:
Dear Rep. Kern:
When you were writing your third-grade promotion bill, how many professional
educators did you consult? Reading specialists? Special education experts?
Child-development experts? In other words, how many teachers did you talk
to? Judging from two educators’ concerns, we don’t think you asked any teachers
or education experts. If you had asked, we would have agreed with your
very sincere wishes for all students to be successful. But we could have
pointed out the serious flaws of your bill, and we could have helped make it
realistic, based on what we know about children, their learning, and best
practices in teaching young readers.
Have you studied
other states’ success rates with retaining third graders – other states,
besides Florida? Have you researched the long-term outcomes of retaining
students? Education experts almost unanimously agree retention leads to
behavior problems, achievement difficulties, and higher drop-out rates. Few
students who have short-term gains sustain those gains over time. Dr. Linda
Darling Hammond, a nationally-known teacher-educator cited the research
recently when asked about this bill. Dr. Barresi quoted a recent study by the
Annie E. Casey Foundation, Double
Jeopardy, in supporting your bill. Unfortunately she was inaccurate in her
belief that poor reading at third grade caused poverty. A close reading of the
study shows that poverty is more likely to lead to poor reading, not, as she
said, poor reading skills leading to poverty.
You yourself said that about 12% of our third graders are not reading at grade
level. We cannot help but wonder about the amount of time and man-hours
invested at the Legislature for these 12% of third graders. Oklahoma currently
has over 20% of our children living in poverty. If we believe the link between
poverty and low achievement, then elementary teachers and students in our state
are performing heroically. Many are overachieving right now, without this
bill. We cannot help but wonder what you could accomplish if you spent time
addressing the root causes of poverty in our state, helping these children and
their parents who suffer poor nutrition, poor health, homelessness. What if you
worked to solve poverty in our state, instead of threatening third graders with
being retained?
You tell us there will be no extra costs in this bill – that forcing children
to spend an additional year in school will not cost us more. How can that be?
How can thirteen years of education cost the same as twelve? Are you sure this
law will be funded? This year, funds for RSA have not been delivered to school
districts as promised? Last year schools did not receive the funds until
February. At this point in the year, the funds are band-aids...not part
of a comprehensive plan. Additionally, the requirement to keep portfolios
with all work for all students falling behind in reading will cost us storage
and materials costs as well as staff hours. Schools must provide parents with
timely feedback about student progress. This means any portfolio materials
would have to be photocopied, giving a copy to the parents, and a copy for the
school’s portfolio, adding more costs. Finally, the alternative assessments you
suggest will surely cost us money. This bill WILL become another unfunded
mandate.
Do you really think you can mandate higher reading scores by threatening
retention, adding or changing the structure of the already existing paperwork
(Individual Reading Plans), assessments and portfolios, while ignoring the true
needs of students, families and teachers?
Students need support
from home and school; parents need information and access to the school and
community resources; and teachers need professional development to hone their
literacy instruction skills. Perhaps most overlooked by those outside
education, educators need time to collaborate, plan and evaluate meaningful
student learning and then plan further instruction from that data. High
quality instruction does not happen by accident; it happens when teachers know
students well and when teachers have proper supports to allow the data to drive
the instruction. Look at the models in the high-achieving countries.
Teachers in these countries are treated as professionals and are given time to
study their work and make the gains with students that are very much within
reach with proper support. Students and teachers need the support of
strong library media specialists and school leaders who will work to inspire a
love of reading...not just for a test...but for life. All of these
components are critical to increasing literacy skills which will lead to
greater learning and higher achievement.
On the floor of the
house, you repeatedly assured your colleagues that this bill would save money,
because there would be fewer special education students. On what evidence do
you base that assertion? We believe it is flawed in two ways. Special education
funding comes from the federal government, as part of the IDEA federal law.
What kind of savings do you envision for Oklahoma? And our second concern is
your belief that learning disabilities or intellectual disabilities can be
“prevented” with an extra year in school. In fact, retaining a child whose
learning disabilities factored into his or her reading difficulties could be
considered malpractice. The least restrictive environment for a child with
learning disabilities is not with younger students.
Another deep concern is the practicality of promoting children mid-year. What
is your plan to deal with the academic and social fallout that will come from
mid-year promotion? Have you considered what will happen to those
students when they are promoted and have missed a semester of math, language,
science, social studies? These students will continue to take
standardized tests, based on cumulative knowledge, some of which could be
missed as students repeat a semester of third grade, and then move into second
semester of fourth grade. There will be social implications of moving children
from class to class in the middle of the year, including issues of materials,
space, and social dynamics. If students are proficient in other subject
areas why not increase services for literacy instruction instead of holding
them back from their peers? Why not expand the Individual Reading Plans
that are already in place for these students, with the promised funding,
to hire reading tutors, to purchase materials for targeted
instruction and to provide high quality professional development?
You told your fellow lawmakers there would be an "alternative
assessment" available to retest students for this mid-year promotion. Is
it available now? Will someone have to write, validate, field-test it before we
give it to our students? Will we have to buy it, lose more instruction time to
administer it, pay to have it scored and returned to us? Will this be
consistent across the state or will there be loopholes for certain
students? These are vital questions that must be answered before we move
forward. Every child in this state and his or her parents deserves these
answers. Will they be consistent from student to students and school to
school? How exactly will our current system of placing students on an
IRP, Individual Reading Plan change? Will it be enhanced and further
supported or simply be a new testing and filing system?
Either of the signers of this letter would have been happy to sit down with you
and tell what will and won't work in the classroom, what we've already
accomplished, what others (Texas, for example) have attempted and are abandoning.
We would have told you the idea of a portfolio with 'everything' a student
produces from kindergarten to the end of third grade is impossible to assemble
and store...and doing that for four of five students in a class would be
overwhelming, including the time and materials to photocopy all the papers.
We could tell you we already have a system in place where students are placed
on an IRP if they are not proficient on the state assessment at the beginning
of the year in grades 1-3 and this information travels with them in their
cumulative folder. The teachers meet with parents and sign off on a plan
for the year. Students remain on the plan until they are proficient or
until they go to 4th grade. Does this system need to be improved?
Absolutely! The initial intent of the Reading Sufficiency Act was that it
would continue through eighth grade--each year picking up another year--to be a
comprehensive support system. How will student's reading improve if
we are changing paperwork but not addressing the root causes and issues
associated with our greatest achievement gaps?
Please, come spend some time in our schools before you concoct any more magic
potions that will ultimately leave scars in the academic and social lives of
our students for years to come. Ask us. We want to be part of the
solutions. We are deeply committed to our students; we are invested in
their success. We have experience, knowledge, and a deep understanding of
learning...and achievement. None of us can solve these complicated issues
alone. True reform involves listening, respect and both top-down and
bottom-up initiatives. There are thousands of highly professional educators in
our state who have the expertise to craft a real solution at little or no cost
to the state. There are Master Teachers, National Board Certified Teachers,
Teachers of the Year and finalists. There are Staff Development Committee
members around the state who need to be part of this discussion. Parents need
to be part of this discussion, as well as students. This bill is deeply flawed
because you chose not to include those of us closest to the work. Every day, we
attend to the issues of our shared literacy concerns. Please allow us the
opportunity to be part of this conversation. Let us show you that
educators in Oklahoma are a valuable part of the equation. The solutions
we can create together will reap rewards for our students and the future of the
great state we have all chosen as home.
Michale Gentry
Madison Elementary
Norman, OK
National Board Certified
Teacher
Claudia Swisher
Norman North High School
Norman, OK
National Board Certified
Teacher
And her response to us:
Claudia,
Thank you for your email regarding the third grade retention bill. I appreciate you taking the time to express your concerns.
Yes, I did talk with some elementary school teachers about the bill as well as look at what Florida has done. I also looked at what Massachusetts has done. I even talked with parents who wished their child had been retained and some who said they want their child held back.
There are numerous studies showing that social promotion is harmful to children and making sure they can read is the best thing you can do for them. You state that “education experts almost unanimously agree retention leads to behavior problems, etc. There are just as many experts who disagree. ”I was a teacher in high school for close to 20 years and was always amazed at how many twelfth graders I would have that could not read well at all. These were the ones who had discipline problems, could care less about school, and were totally unengaged with anything to do with education. What kind of education have they received sitting in class all those years and not being able to learn?
Concerning the mid year promotion, no student can be promoted past October 31. Yes, they will have to take a test and it is already in place. No funds will need to be expended for purchasing new tests. Regarding an extra year in school, that will be a lot less expensive than a few years in prison. Statistics show that over half of the male prison population cannot read at a fifth grade level.
This program will be phased in beginning with next year’s first graders. That will give teachers three years to provide extra reading instruction to those students found as having a deficiency in reading. Given this intensive reading instruction, there should be fewer students who will need to be retained. Your argument about portfolios seems to be just an excuse to oppose the bill. Doing something on a day by day basis is always easier than looking at the whole task all at once.
Obviously, we will never agree on this issue. I appreciate the time and effort you give your students. Teachers touch the future as few others do.
Again, thank you for your email. I hope you’ll pass mine along to your colleague who also wrote me.
God bless,
Sally Kern
Mine to her:
Dear Rep. Kern
Thank you for responding quickly and personally to our note.
I would have appreciated a more thorough response, but I know you’re busy, and
we can begin a dialogue at least.
I was interested by your characterization of parents you
talked with: “parents who wished their child had been retained and some who
said they want their child held back.” So, parents felt that was the correct
thing for their children and didn’t do it? I’m aghast. They knew their child
needed an extra year, and they didn’t do it? I have taught every grade level in
public education and I have sat in meetings where teachers and parents had
these hard conversations. Never has a parent’s wish been ignored. Parents are
the final word, or at least they are until your law passes. Then, the decision
will be out of their hands for good. But until that happens, I must wonder
about the motivation of parents who do not make the correct decision for their
own children.
I find it ironic that you feel you’re supporting those
parents by taking the rights of other parents away from them. Your bill will
make it impossible for parents and teachers together to make the right decision
for each child. Now, all children who struggle with reading, for whatever
reason, will be forced to bow to the will of the state Legislature who will
never set eyes on the children, or know the ramifications of their action.
I guess we could trade expert opinions forever, but I stand
firmly with the National Association of School Psychologists and the University
of Chicago’s Consortium on School Research in their findings that this
political move may be harmful to children. A quick google search finds Oklahoma
is firmly on the bandwagon of other Republican state governments beating up on
teachers and blaming students for their difficulties. That does not make this
bill right for children; it just makes it politically popular – at the moment. I
would be interested in reading the studies you’re basing your work on.
You decried the students in your twelfth grade classes for
their ‘unengaged’ attitudes. I, too, have taught seniors: English 4. And I must
say, if my students were disengaged, then I wasn’t doing my job. If I knew a
student needed materials at a different level, or a different method of lesson
delivery, it was my moral obligation to make sure I engineered my classroom so
that every student could learn. Will they all learn, even in the best of
classrooms? No. Not until their basic needs for health and security and food
are met. Not until their lives are free from other distractions. But it is my
moral obligation to give students the opportunity to succeed. My experience and
training give me the tools to see
every student in my class and find the right way to teach each one. Discipline
problems? Not if I’m doing my job. If I am, I’m anticipating problems and
planning ways to avoid them. I do not blame my students for my lack of
professionalism, for choosing not to do the hard work of teaching.
So, mid-year promotion will be at the first nine weeks? My
concerns remain. And what about the child who’s strong in math and science
whose development in reading lags? Will that child’s other skills stagnate
while he or she spends more time in third grade?
I find your remark about an extra year of school costing
less than being in prison highly offensive. Are you saying children are
destined to prison if they’re not retained in third grade? What about
addressing, as you chose not to in
our first letter, the underlying factors of incarceration and poor performance
in school? What about the elephant in the room? What about poverty? Sub-par
health care? What about children who take home back packs of food every Friday,
but don’t eat because they’re making sure their younger brothers and sisters
have food over the weekend? Yes, many people who are imprisoned have low
reading levels. Many are mentally retarded. Do you have the figures that show
these prisoners come from strong middle-class backgrounds, or is poverty the
underlying factor, as it is with poor reading? Your remark is not worthy of a
political discussion.
You say this program will be phased in over three years,
giving ‘teachers three years to provide extra reading instruction.’ Do you
honestly believe early-childhood teachers are twiddling their thumbs now, doing
nothing? Are you aware of the interventions in place at this time? Are you
aware of the Reading Sufficiency Act that has tracked children who are lagging
behind, giving them all kinds of extra attention? Are you also aware of the
fact that the Legislature has not funded RSA for this year at all? We are
already giving students ‘intensive reading instruction,’ and in many ways we’re
winning the fight for literacy: over 20% of Oklahoma’s children live in
poverty, and only 12% are not proficient readers at the end of third grade. Are
we satisfied with that? Of course not, but we understand child development and
we know students do not progress equally in all aspects of their education.
One
of my students from years ago struggled in reading as a third grader, a fourth
grader, and a fifth grader. We promoted him, with supports from our reading lab
and a fantastic library, because we knew developmentally it was the right thing
to do. This decision was made by the people who knew him best – his parents,
his teachers, and his administrator. Right now, that young man is a junior high
social studies teacher, and a National Board Certified Teacher.
I shared your letter with my colleagues and they raised
other concerns: will students be
retained multiple times? Will we have 12-year-old third graders under this
plan? Are we ready for the intimidation of other students by such students?
What about the alternative assessments? You did not address this here except to
say a test is ‘already in place.’ Do you know about Stephen Krashen’s research pointing
to strong school libraries as a significant factor in student performance? But
HB3029 last session froze library funding for years. You’ve weakened a program that could be
helping every public school student in our state. One colleague wondered about
the first grader who could pass the third grade reading proficiency…would he or
she be promoted to fourth grade?
We teachers have repeatedly reminded policymakers that we
have expertise, we have experience, and we have a huge stake in the success of
our students. We deserve to be included in policy decisions. We deserve to help
form the policies we live with, the policies we are charged with carrying out.
This discussion goes deeper than ‘we will never agree on
this issue.’ We all have the same goal: we want every child in Oklahoma to be a
successful student, every year of his or her school career. There is common
ground. We want to find that common ground. Do you?
Respectfully,
Claudia Swisher
