You are 100% correct. I am a recently retired district level administrator in a Florida district. Retention of students in 3rd grade does not solve the problem and, as you indicated, if they just repeat 3rd grade without targeted intervention, it’s likely nothing will change. Rather, intensive reading support and continually progress monitoring can and does improve students’ reading skills. Generally, 3rd grade struggling readers need intensive support into middle school and, if focused appropriately, students can achieve proficiency before they leave middle school. The goal should be to enter 9th grade on level so that students can continue in the regular curriculum without having to take even more intensive support classes rather than interesting electives. The challenge for teachers and administrators is to identify effective, specific intervention and implement it effectively. That can be very challenging, if appropriate support isn’t provided for teachers. By that I mean small group/class size, focused curriculum, and ongoing progress monitoring. When I worked with teachers and school administrators, we preferred to call this an acceleration model, not a remedial model. Students deserve a positive approach that emphasizes their strengths and focuses on expending their strengths. Kids know when they are lacking skills and want to learn and achieve. I truly hate it when we label kids when they are 8-9 years old because they didn’t hit the accepted target on a standardized test that, in my mind, is unreasonably long, boring and stressful for them.
I largely agree with your points, but there’s a nit I have to pick. I noticed that you’ve identified “progress monitoring” as being something separate from the day to day reading support and curriculum. IMO any competent teacher is constantly monitoring & assessing students’ response to instruction (ie “are they getting it?”) & adjusting to that response - a constant feedback loop. Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding, but it seems like you’re talking about a more formalized assessment that reports data up the chain of command. I’m not clear as to how the student benefits from that element.
When I mention progress monitoring as it relates to an acceleration program, I am referring to informal assessments within the curriculum. Depending on the curriculum chosen, most have frequent "checks" to provide a feedback loop. I agree teachers constantly monitor; however, I believe they should also utilize whatever program checks are available. This can help accelerate students through intervention. Students only need to "get it," and then move on. The temptation is sometimes to want students to complete a program or intervention when, in fact, it's not necessary. In Florida, statute and rule require schools to assess students (with the F.A.S.T.) three times/year, with the last assessment considered the "summative" assessment.
While Fl requires a lot of testing & assessment, I think we can agree that there’s no serious argument that those provide any meaningful benefit to an individual student’s reading proficiency. The intensive, individualized reading support guided by quality diagnostic tools is what gives kids the best chance for success. The utility of the in-program assessments can vary widely. Some can provide the teacher with information she previously didn’t have, contributing to the diagnostic component. However, far more of the assessments are benchmarks & are used by others (the teacher already knows how the student is doing) to make judgments about if he’s moving “fast enough” or if he still “qualifies” for support. This doesn’t help the student’s reading progress.
There’s a difference between supporting a student to accelerate their progress to their max capability vs. accelerating a student through a program.
Agree with you. While students receive acceleration support, the point is not to accelerate them through a program just to accelerate them through a program but to identify specific areas to target for instruction so students can access the grade level curriculum. The point for the student is to help them develop the necessary skills to interact with the regular education program. Some students can exit intensive support fairly quickly. Others may need longer periods of support. Every child is unique. You can argue all day about "developmentally appropriate," but I believe students, and their parents and teachers, want their students/children to graduate from high school with the ability to navigate the adult world of work /further education/family. That's kind of the end game in K-12 education.
It seems like the remediation/retention debate tends to ignore the big red flag - we’re pushing kids into academics at earlier & earlier ages that may not be developmentally appropriate. No matter how much we may want to go fast, if you try to build the house before the foundational concrete has properly set, bad things happen.
You are 100% correct. I am a recently retired district level administrator in a Florida district. Retention of students in 3rd grade does not solve the problem and, as you indicated, if they just repeat 3rd grade without targeted intervention, it’s likely nothing will change. Rather, intensive reading support and continually progress monitoring can and does improve students’ reading skills. Generally, 3rd grade struggling readers need intensive support into middle school and, if focused appropriately, students can achieve proficiency before they leave middle school. The goal should be to enter 9th grade on level so that students can continue in the regular curriculum without having to take even more intensive support classes rather than interesting electives. The challenge for teachers and administrators is to identify effective, specific intervention and implement it effectively. That can be very challenging, if appropriate support isn’t provided for teachers. By that I mean small group/class size, focused curriculum, and ongoing progress monitoring. When I worked with teachers and school administrators, we preferred to call this an acceleration model, not a remedial model. Students deserve a positive approach that emphasizes their strengths and focuses on expending their strengths. Kids know when they are lacking skills and want to learn and achieve. I truly hate it when we label kids when they are 8-9 years old because they didn’t hit the accepted target on a standardized test that, in my mind, is unreasonably long, boring and stressful for them.
I largely agree with your points, but there’s a nit I have to pick. I noticed that you’ve identified “progress monitoring” as being something separate from the day to day reading support and curriculum. IMO any competent teacher is constantly monitoring & assessing students’ response to instruction (ie “are they getting it?”) & adjusting to that response - a constant feedback loop. Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding, but it seems like you’re talking about a more formalized assessment that reports data up the chain of command. I’m not clear as to how the student benefits from that element.
When I mention progress monitoring as it relates to an acceleration program, I am referring to informal assessments within the curriculum. Depending on the curriculum chosen, most have frequent "checks" to provide a feedback loop. I agree teachers constantly monitor; however, I believe they should also utilize whatever program checks are available. This can help accelerate students through intervention. Students only need to "get it," and then move on. The temptation is sometimes to want students to complete a program or intervention when, in fact, it's not necessary. In Florida, statute and rule require schools to assess students (with the F.A.S.T.) three times/year, with the last assessment considered the "summative" assessment.
While Fl requires a lot of testing & assessment, I think we can agree that there’s no serious argument that those provide any meaningful benefit to an individual student’s reading proficiency. The intensive, individualized reading support guided by quality diagnostic tools is what gives kids the best chance for success. The utility of the in-program assessments can vary widely. Some can provide the teacher with information she previously didn’t have, contributing to the diagnostic component. However, far more of the assessments are benchmarks & are used by others (the teacher already knows how the student is doing) to make judgments about if he’s moving “fast enough” or if he still “qualifies” for support. This doesn’t help the student’s reading progress.
There’s a difference between supporting a student to accelerate their progress to their max capability vs. accelerating a student through a program.
Agree with you. While students receive acceleration support, the point is not to accelerate them through a program just to accelerate them through a program but to identify specific areas to target for instruction so students can access the grade level curriculum. The point for the student is to help them develop the necessary skills to interact with the regular education program. Some students can exit intensive support fairly quickly. Others may need longer periods of support. Every child is unique. You can argue all day about "developmentally appropriate," but I believe students, and their parents and teachers, want their students/children to graduate from high school with the ability to navigate the adult world of work /further education/family. That's kind of the end game in K-12 education.
It seems like the remediation/retention debate tends to ignore the big red flag - we’re pushing kids into academics at earlier & earlier ages that may not be developmentally appropriate. No matter how much we may want to go fast, if you try to build the house before the foundational concrete has properly set, bad things happen.