Mecklenburg ACTS
    Working for equity and excellence in ALL Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
    • Home
    • Opt-Out/Refusal
      • “Opting out” or “refusing”?
        • Potential consequences of opting out of/refusing state exams
        • Opt-out/refusal code of ethics
        • Suggested opt-out/refusal procedure
          • NCDPI statement on test procedures
          • Opt-Out Petition
          • North Carolina test timeline
      • Articles on NC opt-out/refusal
      • Research on High-Stakes Testing
        • Alternatives to high-stakes testing
        • High-stakes tests and Common Core
        • Sample High-Stakes Testing Letter
      • The New York opt-out/refusal movement
    • Read to Achieve
      • Politics-driven Read to Achieve a path to failure for NC
      • NC must rethink Read to Achieve because retention leads to more dropouts
      • Dear Senator Berger
      • Enough Is Enough: Why I Withdrew My Daughter From Public School
      • Holding Kids Back Doesn’t Help Them
      • National Association of School Psychologists on Retention
      • Fear and Loathing in a Florida School
    • Archive
      • History
      • Observer articles & coverage
      • Statements to BOE
        • Equity – history
          • Comparing student scores at CMS middle schools
      • DNC 2012
        • DNC Media Coverage
        • Pam and Carol’s Excellent Students First Adventure
        • Moms on the Loose: Pam and Carol Meet DFER
        • A Better Place: Reflections on Education and the DNC
      • #1DayTA

    Senate Read to Achieve Action Not Bold Enough

    May 28, 2014

      Students, parents and teachers across North Carolina call on the General Assembly to take bolder steps to rectify the widespread problems with the Read to Achieve legislation.

      This morning, the Senate Committee on Education/Higher Education proposed some changes to Read to Achieve. But while these changes will provide some welcome relief for children with disabilities, they will do little to reduce the amount of extra testing Read to Achieve requires, the added pressure it has put on third graders, or the harm it threatens to do to some of North Carolina’s most vulnerable eight-year-olds. Stronger action is needed.

      Read to Achieve contains three fundamental flaws.

      1. It requires that children be retained based on test scores. Decades of research have clearly established that in most cases retention does children more harm than good. A decision of such importance should be made by parents and teachers who work closely with children and know them as individuals, rather than by a piece of legislation passed in Raleigh.

      2. It makes life-changing decisions based on standardized test scores. While standardized tests can provide useful information, they measure only a narrow set of the skills needed to read avidly and well. When standardized test scores are used in high-stakes decisions such as retention or mandatory summer school, schools often focus all their efforts on the skills the tests can measure. Rather than reading and exploring rich, engaging texts, students at all levels are forced into a dull routine of worksheets and skills practice that diminishes both their love of reading and their interest in school. While the 36 “portfolio” tests created in response to the legislation exacerbated this situation, the fundamental problem lies in the high-stakes use of test scores.

      3. It begins its most significant intervention far too late.
      Successful reading requires a strong foundation at an early age. Rather than imposing penalties in third grade, legislation should focus efforts and funds on providing additional supports for challenged readers starting in kindergarten or earlier.

      We do not believe that our General Assembly needs or wishes to punish children in order to focus the attention of adults on the problems with reading that North Carolina children face.

      If members of the General Assembly wish to help children learn to read, and to reduce out-of-control testing, they will take a close look at the results of their own actions. We call on them to draw on the experience and advice of North Carolina teachers, students and parents. They should remove the threat of test-based retention, postpone the “portfolio” requirements until a set of non-test-based portfolio items can be developed, and find resources to provide more intensive support for struggling readers in earlier years.

      Related Posts

      Equity /

      Moving On

      Equity /

      Human endeavor vs. business transaction

      Equity /

      Thoughts on CMS Assignment

      ‹ North Carolina Parents call on General Assembly to end Read to Achieve › Much Read to Achieve Work Ahead

      Recent Posts

      • Moving On
      • Human endeavor vs. business transaction
      • Thoughts on CMS Assignment
      • New State Superintendent sticks with testing status quo
      • FairTest Issues New Assessment Recommendations

      Previous Posts

      Back to Top

      © Mecklenburg ACTS 2023