Holding back kids doesn’t boost literacy
It’s hard to implement so-called educational “reforms” when the Legislature disagrees that education will improve as a result. That’s why Gov. Susana Martinez and her Public Education Department have been willing to put changes in place through rule, rather than law.
Now, in the last months of her second term, Martinez once more is trying an end run around the Legislature. This time, the education department wants to hold back students who aren’t reading proficiently in early grades. The decision to retain a child, by the way, would be based on the results of one state-approved test.
State bureaucrats don’t seem to care that legislators repeatedly have rejected that approach. (It’s not the first time that a rule has trumped the failure to pass a law; already, the department implemented teacher evaluations administratively, even after the Legislature rejected the governor’s plan.)
We have said before that the governor’s insistence on retention as a solution to the reading woes of children is the wrong approach. All of us in New Mexico want children to read more proficiently. Strong readers in the early grades will become outstanding students as they progress through school — and, yes, they will become graduates and college students in greater numbers than children who cannot read. The goal is admirable. Parts of the proposal, too, would provide greater help for children who struggle with reading and seek to create more parental involvement. Those good portions of the plan, however, are outweighed by its negatives.
Overall, the education department’s approach — which removes control from local districts, teachers and parents and overemphasizes penalties — is not the best way to help children learn to love reading. It is especially wrong-headed in the waning months of an administration. Any new public education secretary could reverse the rule, especially should a Democratic governor follow the Republican Martinez. That’s a lot of commotion for an approach that could be abandoned next year.
What’s more, the current Public Education Department Secretary-designate, Christopher Ruszkowski, is serving without the confirmation of the Legislature. An unconfirmed, temporary bureaucrat-in-chief is not the person who should be attempting farreaching changes in New Mexico’s educational system. Ruszkowski won’t be here in a few months, either at the education department or in New Mexico — these educational “reformers” are like hired guns. They move in and out, depending on who gets elected.
Yet here we are, wasting everyone’s time and effort on a short-sighted plan that couldn’t pass the Legislature. Perhaps loud public opposition can put the brakes on the notion, as it did in stopping the watering down of science standards.
On Thursday, the Public Education Department will hear public comment from 9 a.m. to noon in Mabry Hall of the Public Education Department building, 300 Don Gaspar Ave. Public input on the plan will be accepted until 5 p.m. If adopted, the rule would take effect in July 1. Please show up and be heard.
There exists plenty of opposition to the proposal, whether from community members, legislators or educators. Some legislators, in fact, believe it conflicts with state statute, meaning a lawsuit could follow if the rule is adopted. Perhaps bureaucrats will listen Thursday, as well as take to heart some 28 pages of feedback already sent in.
We have better ways to improve reading than forced retention, which, according to most peer-reviewed studies of the last 30 years, produces few or no long-term academic benefits.
Rather than force a student to repeat a grade, such tried-and-true methods as early interventions, tutoring, summer reading programs and high-quality pre-K can boost literacy (and cost less than mass retention). Leave the decisions to hold back students to classroom teachers and parents, based on an individual child’s needs, not a one-size-fitsall standardized test.
Let students learn to love reading, rather than fear it. But don’t, just because you think you can, upend public education. It’s bad policy, and most of all, it would be bad for kids. Put them first, please.