LET LOCAL DISTRICTS -- NO STATE -- HELP JOHNNY LEARN TO READ

In the United States, a free public education has been established as a right for every young person. Yet over the past two decades the quality of that public education has been called into question on numerous occasions. During that time, various legislative initiatives have been imposed in an attempt to force an improvement in public education. In Missouri, the latest of these occurred during the closing days of the 1999 legislative session with the passage of what has become known as the "social promotion" legislation. Even though the legislature is reconsidering portions of this bill in the current session, it still has some serious problems. This legislation is not good for kids.

I doubt that anyone would argue against the concept of establishing high expectations for students in our nation's elementary and secondary schools. We all want schools to do their best. Our students need to graduate with the skills necessary to be successful in life. We recognize that everyone benefits when we have an educated populace. We need to hold students accountable. Our students need to strive to reach high academic goals. Yet this latest round of "social promotion" legislation takes the wrong track in attempting to enforce specific standards relating to reading achievement.

On the surface, the reading provisions of this legislation sound fantastic. Making sure all students read at or near their grade level is an admirable goal. The original legislation tried to force that goal by requiring school districts to fail any student who is reading more than one grade level below his current placement. This was an attempt to counteract the practice of moving students on with their class, a practice often referred to as social promotion.

The substitute bill currently being considered by the Legislature softens that penalty by mandating a year of special reading training before the district is forced to fail the student. But even with this new provision, the law falls far short of helping kids.

Such hard and fast rules may be good politics, but they are bad educationally. When the state tries to determine when students can and cannot pass, this takes control away from the local school district. Individuals who have no knowledge of these children or the local community are telling schools how best to educate the children. That doesn't make sense. The instruction of children is a complex process. Each and every child is unique in a certain sense. They come from unique backgrounds, they have their own set of unique circumstances, and they have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Within the educational system, we must work with children where they are. Yes, reading is a vital component of the educational process. Yes, reading is a skill that is necessary to be a productive citizen in our society. Yes, schools should be held accountable for teaching students to read. But legislating specific guidelines for the retention of students based on their reading level is not appropriate for at least three reasons.

First, this plan is dependent on test scores even though the tests may not be wholly reliable. The current substitute legislation tries to address this issue by allowing a number of different ways to measure reading level. But the fact remains that a number of factors can enter into how well a student does on a particular test. This would be a high stakes situation and to ensure that students are treated fairly would require substantial testing time that could more appropriately be used for reading instruction.

Second, there is a substantial body of data that indicates retention does not work. Students who are retained once have a much higher chance of dropping out of school, and students who are retained twice are almost sure to drop out of school. In addition, the data indicate that over time there is no difference between the achievement of students who are retained and those who are not retained. Thus, retaining students who are not reading near their grade level has almost no positive benefit and has substantial negative consequences.

Third, there are some things that just can't be legislated. You cannot legislate learning. You cannot force students to learn. If the purpose of the legislation is to provide an incentive to improve reading, then why approach it from a punitive standpoint? Why not provide incentives to reward students and schools where reading achievement is consistently at or above grade level?

Obviously, a lack of reading ability has been noted as a problem within our nation's schools. So if legislation such as that currently being considered is not the answer, what should be done? I would suggest that we go the opposite direction, reduce state regulations and allow schools to do what they know how to do. Provide schools with the environment and tools to do the job in a positive way.

First, reduce state-mandated subject requirements in the lower grades. If a student is not reading at or above grade level, we should demand that all other academic instruction be suspended and focus solely on reading and language instruction. Students who can read well will catch up in other academic subjects.

Second, supplemental funding should be utilized for summer reading programs. The latest legislation does recognize this need and allows school districts to require students to be involved in intensive summer reading instruction if they are reading more than one year below grade level. This would in effect extend the school year for these students and reap substantial benefits.

Finally, schools should have a K-12 focus on reading. The substitute bill under consideration falls short here by discontinuing direct monitoring after the eighth grade. Reading should not be viewed as an elementary school program. All students should be expected to read, read well and read often. Such a focus would further demonstrate the value of reading to the community as a whole.

I applaud the Missouri Legislature for taking a stand on the need to improve reading instruction. I just believe the approach they are proposing will not accomplish the desired goals. Give the schools a charge to achieve grade level reading with all students, give them the freedom to accomplish that in the manner they see best, provide full funding for supplemental reading programs, and then hold us accountable for the product. Public schools will come through.

David F. Hollingshead is superintendent of schools in the Gideon School District in New Madrid County.