Reading--The Legislature Is Too Interested, the State Supreme Court Is Not Interested Enough

Third Grade Reading Bill Passes House Education Committee--What's In It?

The "third grade reading bill," as it is being called in shorthand, has passed the state house education committee. To my great disappointment, my representative (Adam Zemke) has signed on as a sponsor.


5) BEGINNING WITH PUPILS ENROLLED IN GRADE 3 DURING THE 2016-
8 2017 SCHOOL YEAR, ALL OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY:
9 (A) IF A PUPIL ENROLLED IN GRADE 3 IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR
10 PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY IS RATED 1 FULL GRADE LEVEL OR MORE BEHIND IN
11 READING, AS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT BASED ON THE READING12 PORTION OF THE GRADE 3 STATE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS ASSESSMENT, THE
13 BOARD OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PUBLIC
14 SCHOOL ACADEMY IN WHICH THE PUPIL IS ENROLLED SHALL ENSURE THAT THE
15 PUPIL IS NOT ENROLLED IN GRADE 4 UNTIL 1 OF THE FOLLOWING OCCURS:
16 (i) THE PUPIL ACHIEVES A GRADE 3 LEVEL READING SCORE AS
17 DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT BASED ON THE GRADE 3 STATE ENGLISH
18 LANGUAGE ARTS ASSESSMENT.
19 (ii) THE PUPIL DEMONSTRATES A GRADE 3 READING LEVEL THROUGH
20 PERFORMANCE ON AN ALTERNATIVE STANDARDIZED READING ASSESSMENT
21 APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.
22 (iii) THE PUPIL DEMONSTRATES A GRADE 3 READING LEVEL THROUGH A
23 PUPIL PORTFOLIO, AS EVIDENCED BY DEMONSTRATING MASTERY OF ALL GRADE
24 3 STATE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS STANDARDS THROUGH MULTIPLE WORK
25 SAMPLES.
26 (B) IF A CHILD YOUNGER THAN 10 YEARS OF AGE SEEKS TO ENROLL
27 FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY IN 
1 GRADE 4, THE BOARD OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
2 THE PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY SHALL NOT ALLOW THE CHILD TO ENROLL IN
3 GRADE 4 UNLESS 1 OF THE FOLLOWING OCCURS:
4 (i) THE CHILD ACHIEVES A GRADE 3 LEVEL READING SCORE AS
5 DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT BASED ON THE READING PORTION OF THE
6 GRADE 3 STATE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS ASSESSMENT.
7 (ii) THE CHILD DEMONSTRATES A GRADE 3 READING LEVEL THROUGH
8 PERFORMANCE ON AN ALTERNATIVE STANDARDIZED READING ASSESSMENT
9 APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.
10 (iii) THE CHILD DEMONSTRATES A GRADE 3 READING LEVEL THROUGH A
11 PUPIL PORTFOLIO, AS EVIDENCED BY DEMONSTRATING MASTERY OF ALL GRADE
12 3 STATE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS STANDARDS THROUGH MULTIPLE WORK
13 SAMPLES.

In other words--typically a student could be held back based on just his or her performance on a state test. 

14 (C) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (12), IF A PUPIL IS NOT ENROLLED IN
15 GRADE 4 DUE TO THE OPERATION OF THIS SUBSECTION AND THE PUPIL HAS
16 DEMONSTRATED PROFICIENCY IN MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, WRITING, OR
17 SOCIAL STUDIES AS DETERMINED BY THE GRADE 3 STATE ASSESSMENT IN THE
18 APPLICABLE SUBJECT AREA OR BY THE PUPIL'S GRADE 3 READING TEACHER,
19 THE BOARD OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
20 PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY SHALL ENSURE THAT THE PUPIL IS PROVIDED WITH
21 INSTRUCTION COMMENSURATE WITH THE PUPIL'S ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL IN THAT
22 SPECIFIC SUBJECT AREA. THIS INSTRUCTION MAY BE GIVEN IN A GRADE 4
23 CLASSROOM SETTING.

In other words, a student might be "moved up" to Grade 4 for math and science and social studies, and then pulled out for reading intervention, but not actually called a "4th grader" unless his or her reading progressed.

24 (6) FOR PUPILS WHO ARE NOT ADVANCED TO GRADE 4 OR CHILDREN WHO
25 ARE NOT ENROLLED IN GRADE 4 DUE TO THE OPERATION OF SUBSECTION (5),
26 THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY SHALL PROVIDE A
27 READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM THAT IS INTENDED TO CORRECT THE 
1 PUPIL'S SPECIFIC READING DEFICIENCY, AS IDENTIFIED BY A VALID AND
2 RELIABLE ASSESSMENT, AND ADDRESS ANY BARRIERS TO READING. THIS
3 PROGRAM SHALL INCLUDE EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES NECESSARY
4 TO ASSIST THE PUPIL IN BECOMING A SUCCESSFUL READER, AND ALL OF THE
5 FOLLOWING FEATURES, AS APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
6 PUPIL:
7 (A) A REDUCED PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO OR 1-TO-1 READING
8 INTERVENTION WITH A VOLUNTEER.
9 (B) ASSIGNING TO THE PUPIL A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE TEACHER OF
10 READING AS DETERMINED BY THE TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM UNDER
11 SECTION 1249, THE HIGHEST EVALUATED TEACHER IN THE SCHOOL AS
12 DETERMINED BY THAT SYSTEM, OR A READING SPECIALIST.
13 (C) READING PROGRAMS THAT ARE RESEARCH-BASED AND HAVE PROVEN
14 RESULTS IN ACCELERATING PUPIL READING ACHIEVEMENT WITHIN THE SAME
15 SCHOOL YEAR.
16 (D) READING INSTRUCTION AND INTERVENTION FOR THE MAJORITY OF
17 PUPIL CONTACT TIME EACH DAY THAT INCORPORATES OPPORTUNITIES TO
18 MASTER THE GRADE 4 STATE STANDARDS IN OTHER CORE ACADEMIC AREAS.
19 (E) DAILY TARGETED SMALL GROUP OR 1-TO-1 READING INTERVENTION
20 THAT IS BASED ON PUPIL NEEDS, DETERMINED BY ASSESSMENT DATA, AND ON
21 DIAGNOSED BARRIERS TO READING AND THAT INCLUDES EXPLICIT AND
22 SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION WITH MORE DETAILED AND VARIED EXPLANATIONS,
23 MORE EXTENSIVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR GUIDED PRACTICE, AND MORE
24 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ERROR CORRECTION AND FEEDBACK.
25 (F) ADMINISTRATION OF ONGOING PROGRESS MONITORING ASSESSMENTS
26 TO FREQUENTLY MONITOR PUPIL PROGRESS.
27 (G) SUPPLEMENTAL RESEARCH-BASED READING INTERVENTION DELIVERED 
1 BY A TEACHER OR TUTOR WITH SPECIALIZED READING TRAINING THAT IS
2 PROVIDED BEFORE SCHOOL, AFTER SCHOOL, DURING REGULAR SCHOOL HOURS
3 BUT OUTSIDE OF REGULAR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSROOM TIME, OR ANY
4 COMBINATION OF THESE.
5 (H) PROVIDES PARENTS AND LEGAL GUARDIANS WITH A "READ AT HOME"
6 PLAN OUTLINED IN A PARENTAL CONTRACT, INCLUDING PARTICIPATION IN
7 PARENT AND GUARDIAN TRAINING WORKSHOPS AND REGULAR PARENT-GUIDED OR
8 GUARDIAN-GUIDED HOME READING.

Yes, that would mean the teacher assessed as "highly effective" based in large part on test score evaluations. And who is going to pay for the reading interventions? 

[Side note, but totally relevant: The ACLU of Michigan had brought a lawsuit forward based on Highland Park's failure to teach kids to read, and the Supreme Court of Michigan just declined to hear it. People, it's all about funding, and poverty... Go to the end of this piece to read an excerpt of the ACLU statement, or follow the link.]

9 (7) IF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PUPIL'S SCHOOL DISTRICT OR
10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PUPIL'S PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY GRANTS A
11 GOOD CAUSE EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (5)(A) FOR
12 A PUPIL, THEN A PUPIL MAY BE ADVANCED TO GRADE 4 WITHOUT MEETING
13 THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (5)(A). A GOOD CAUSE EXEMPTION MAY
14 BE GRANTED ONLY ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURES UNDER SUBSECTION (9)
15 AND ONLY FOR 1 OF THE FOLLOWING:
16 (A) THE PUPIL IS A STUDENT WITH AN INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION
17 PROGRAM WHOSE INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM TEAM DETERMINES THAT
18 THE PUPIL IS INELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE STANDARD GRADE 3 STATE
19 ASSESSMENT, OR THE MI-ACCESS ASSESSMENT OR ANY SIMILAR ALTERNATIVE
20 STATE ASSESSMENT, ACCORDING TO HIS OR HER INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION
21 PROGRAM.
22 (B) THE PUPIL IS A LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENT WHO HAS
23 HAD LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF INSTRUCTION IN AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER
24 PROGRAM.
25 (C) THE PUPIL HAS RECEIVED INTENSIVE READING INTERVENTION FOR
26 2 OR MORE YEARS BUT STILL DEMONSTRATES A DEFICIENCY IN READING AND
27 WAS PREVIOUSLY RETAINED IN KINDERGARTEN, GRADE 1, GRADE 2, OR GRADE 
1 3.

For crying out loud! This implies that you could have 10 and 11 year olds in with your 8 year olds. Think that makes any sense developmentally? 

It's also worth noting that dyslexia organizations are upset this bill was developed without them. Reading disabilities are often not diagnosed until third or fourth grade.

Here's the full bill. 

***********************************************************

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear ACLU of Michigan lawsuit

The ACLU had brought forward a case filed on behalf of eight public-school students in Highland Park who contend that the district has failed to meet its obligation to ensure basic literacy skills among children in the district.

By car, it's a little over an hour to drive from Highland Park to Lansing,
but clearly it's a world away. Screenshot from Google Maps.

As the ACLU writes, "Today the state Supreme Court refused to hear a case that ruled against children whose schools have failed to teach them to read.   While the trial court decided that The appellate court said that the state has no enforceable duty to ensure that schoolchildren actually learn fundamental skills such as reading – but rather is obligated only to establish and finance a public education system, regardless of the quality of that system. Waving off decades of historic judicial precedent, the majority opinion contended that “judges are not equipped to decide educational policy"... 

Dissenting from the majority opinion, Judge Douglas Shapiro accused the Court of Appeals of “abandonment of our essential judicial roles, that of enforcement of the rule of law even where the defendants are governmental entities, and of protecting the rights of all who live within Michigan’s borders, particularly those, like children, who do not have a voice in the political process. 

ALSO (my summary): The Supreme Court ACKNOWLEDGED an abysmal failure of the system, but by refusing to hear the case essentially said, "It's not our problem."

 *************************************************************** 

Connect...the....Dots 

Guess what? In Highland Park, in the lawsuit, a majority of kids failed the state assessment for proficiency in reading. The district had no money. Has no money. Is under emergency management. Can you imagine having all those kids held back, for one, two, or three years?

The state is ABDICATING its responsibility to help kids in poverty-stricken districts, especially, and no amount of "third grade reading bills" that require expensive interventions but don't provide any money for them is going to solve that problem.

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!