TheGraphicOnline

On June 26, 2002, the Richmond Community School Board unanimously passed Policy 5410, entitled “Promotion Standards,” that was heralded as a giant step in directing education improvement. Jim Russell, a Board member at that time, stated that “this could be one of the most important Policies” in his two years on the Board.

Most members of the general public thought the new policy applied only to reading proficiency in the Third Grade. Policy 5410 does not say that. The relevant portion of the policy states that “when each student achieves grade-level expected proficiency of standards, s/he shall be promoted to the next educationally appropriate level.” In other words, it applies to all grades and in relation to all learning standards at any level. Basically, it was an official decision to eliminate, or at least move away from, “Social Promotion,” whereby students are often moved from one grade level to the next despite deficits in “expected proficiency.”

However, the public focus was always on the Third Grade level, for good reasons. For instance, have you had a child, or watched children begin to struggle with all their subjects in the fourth and fifth grade when they couldn’t read well? Much research also fortifies this impression and identifies the third grade level as the “turning point” in a child’s learning progress – for better or worse. Third grade is also the first grade for ISTEP testing. Educators have a mantra for it: Children learn to read in the first three grades; from then on, they read to learn. Policy 5410 merely codifies what is a common sense conclusion: If a child cannot read at grade level by the third grade, he or she will have trouble from then on.

Deciding Not Easy

It should be noted that although the new policy is stated in positive terms, there is a clear implication that is not so positive. That is, if a student does not achieve grade-level proficiency, he or she is not going to be promoted to the next grade. Ah, there’s the rub! Who really wants to hold the kids back for another go at the same grade? Answer: Nobody. And that’s the reason for “Social Promotion” (in addition to the argument that all kids should be kept in their same age group). But let’s be realistic here. At the point of decision (end of third grade) you have four parties involved: The child, parent, teacher and principle. Does the child want to stay behind? Does the parent want their child branded a failure. Does a teacher (in most cases) want this same problem kid back in the room for another year? Does the principle want his or her school known for a high failure rate? No, no, no, no! You see, all the natural pressures are in the direction of “Social Promotion.” You can’t blame any of them. But is this the best for the child? Policy 5410 says no, it is not; we should not move any child into a higher grade until, at least, she or he can read well enough to learn. Sounds reasonable? Sure. But it’s not that easy.

How is Policy 5410 working out? Depends whom you ask. Some say “Absolutely not; we still have Social Promotion.” Other say, “We’re doing the best we can. You can’t throw kids on the trash heap. We are working in many ways to close the gap, and we’re having some success.” Yes, there is some incremental improvement in ISTEP scores, but they are not up to goals originally set and certainly not up to the new era of proficiency hoped for. Total data showing the whole process is sketchy, even though it was five years ago when the policy was set.

The school administration seems to admit as much. In a report issued on June 22, 2007, it began: “We are often asked at this time of year how many retentions we have and how many students are being “socially promoted.”…we often frustrate the inquiring individual by appearing to make no positive answer.” Various remediation programs have been started in the last five years. Teachers now have an analytic tool called a Personal Education Contract, which can be used to examine each student’s growth, remediation measures, evaluation and consequences for non-achievement. But questions remain as to whether teachers use these in all cases or whether all principals join in evaluating them, and whether there is data on results in the higher grades.

What Kind of Difference?

So – after five years — shouldn’t we ask: Has Policy 5410 made any difference? Yes, but IF we agree with the original purpose of the policy – that it is all-important to assure that every third grader can read well enough to learn in higher grades — perhaps it is even more relevant to ask: Has the administration and the school board fully accepted their responsibility in making sure the policy works?

With all the emphasis on literacy, we shouldn’t forget there are other factors affecting school performance, especially support at home. Math proficiency is important too, but even so, students can’t do well with math if they can’t read. Everything starts with reading. How tragic it is to watch kids start to stumble when they can’t read — and they start to dislike school. What happens after that? I’ll tell you what happens: They learn to hate school. And after that, they start planning to drop out as soon as they can.

It all goes back to the third grade – the “moment of truth.” This is where life-changing decisions must be made. Incremental progress we are making, yes. But not the great leap forward that we not only hoped for but we urgently need. Policy 5410 is not doing what it should.

–Vic Jose

P.S. Next week, some suggestions will be offered to help Policy 5410 live up to its promise: Every Third Grader Reads.

Vic Jose :: Aug.23.2007 :: Uncategorized ::

Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed