Nearly 28 percent of Kansas students who are third-graders cannot read “at a basic level” by the time that year is completed, according to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback.
When they move up to the fourth grade, they are in deep trouble. Up through the third grade, students are being taught to read for reading’s sake. In fourth grade, however, they must read in order to learn other subjects, like math and science, and to problem-solve.
As one might expect, the illiterate children who are passed from the third to the fourth grade have a much higher dropout rate once they get into high school.
According to experts, reading proficiently by the end of the third grade can be a make-it-or-break-it benchmark in a child’s educational development.
Brownback wants to stop this slide in its tracks.
He has pushed for a bill, S.B.169, which says that if a child cannot read by the end of the third grade, that student must be held back (retained, to be more politically correct).
So would end what is called “social promotion” at that grade level.
This would take effect in the 2016-17 school year. Brownback’s budget includes $6 million to help third-grade students learn reading.
There should be little controversy over this proposal, because this is a sound idea. Whatever social pitfalls a retained student might face by being held back, they cannot measure up to the damage of sending a child into the fourth grade who cannot read.
Yet, there is controversy. There always is.
Some educators think the retention is unfair, because many children come into their districts who barely speak English or whose parents have little education and pass on a limited vocabulary.
You would think the governor wants to punish the students. On the contrary. He wants to save them.
The real question is, will it work?
There are 14 states that have implemented similar programs. It is too soon to tell much about their success, except in the case of Florida, which started its third-grade retention program in 2002.
The literacy rates have improved markedly in Florida, and that should be the primary goal.
Florida spent about $130 million this year on literacy programs. They have summer reading camps. The students who cannot read are assigned to “high-performing” teachers.
Kansas has a lot to learn from Florida, and so do the other states that are jumping into this new policy.
But one thing is for certain: To allow a third-grader into fourth grade who cannot read is a travesty.
Brownback’s plan may not have enough funding, and it does not yet have many of the elaborate, comprehensive efforts that Florida is providing.
But it is a good start.
Unfortunately, the bill is stuck in the Senate Education Committee, failing on a 5-6 vote. Hopefully, the governor can cajole enough committee members to move it to the floor of the full Senate, where it likely would pass. A similar bill has already passed the House.
This is a bill I hope the governor will have the opportunity to sign.
| Special to The Star
Dave Trabert
2 months, 2 weeks agoSteve Rose is absolutely right. It is a travesty that Kansas schools actually believe a 3rd grader who can’t read should be sent on the 4th grade and doomed to failure. School districts should be concerned about kids learning, not protecting their record. And legislators should do what’s right for kids instead of doing their superintendent’s bidding.
Judith Grote Deedy
2 months, 2 weeks agoThere is “controversy” because it’s not so simple. A recent study showed that the rises in test scores shown by Florida’s retained students faded out over 6 years. States like Ohio and Oklahoma are finding retention programs and corresponding initiatives cost money; money their state legislatures have not wanted to allocate. Kansans see this will be an issue here as well. Governor Brownback has indicated that some of the funding for his fourth grade reading initiative will come from early childhood education programs, though that seems to defy commonsense. Other studies have linked retention to higher rates of dropping out of school. Many of us acknowledge the issue, but believe this is the wrong solution. Make increasing third grade reading levels a policy, fund early intervention programs, but leave retention decisions to principals, teachers and parents who can look at a student as a whole rather than mandate them in Topeka based on a single test score.
Jeffrey Sykes
2 months, 2 weeks agoWere this the only educational reform being introduced one might potentially agree with the opinion of this piece. However, this bill is part of a larger agenda being pushed by KPI and other groups whose intentions are much more suspect. When you combine this bill with the Legislature’s desire to cut educational funding, silence teacher’s unions, eliminate the ability for local school boards to lobby the legislature, dictate curriculum, attempting to change the way at-risk students are determined, change the appointment of the judiciary to find judges more sympathetic to their agenda, one can only begin to see this as part of a larger agenda to drastically change the way public education works in Kansas. All of this agenda is in place to allow the Governor to cut taxes on businesses which will ultimately shift the tax burden to those of us in the middle class.
I’m not saying that there isn’t room for reform, but let’s start by doing this that make sense. How about looking at the size of classes? My third grader attends a Shawnee Mission school where there are 28 third graders in a room where they barely have room to move. If one of those students is having trouble, how could even a “stellar” teacher make significant progress without ignoring other students who are doing well? How would they have time to help the students? If the Kansas Legislature is serious about improving education, let’s start by stepping up and adequately funding education in the class room. Before Mr. Trabert says it bond issues and KPERS funding shouldn’t be considered as part of a growth in public education spending. That is a tired and misleading argument.
Let’s also not forget that testing in fourth grade is used for assessment of the schools and holding back third graders would probably result in higher test scores making evaluating this type of program more difficult as comparing results against past years would be more difficult.
At best this opinion piece is incredibly naive. At worst, it is a direct obfuscation of a larger agenda in service to interests which run counter to those of students.
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoIf the schools were adequately funded to begin with, teachers’ voices respected, and the education of our children the priority it needs to be under the Kansas constitution, this one size fits all mandate would be unnecessary. Rather than addressing the legislature’s obligation to take education seriously, the governor is pushing for a quick fix for test scores in the fourth grade. I don’t think anyone believes anymore that Brownback or the legislature has our kids’ best interests at heart. They’ve thrown education under the bus of the ” no income tax” aspirations, and the wreckage of our schools will be their’s to own.
Dave Trabert
2 months, 2 weeks agoSchools should be adequately funded but nobody really knows how much that is. The cost study used in Montoy deliberately ignored efficiency, even though their methodology called for its inclusion. Legislators should continue to examine all of the inputs…including money…get schools organized and operating in a cost effective manner…do a study to determine what that system costs and fund it.
FYI, 2012 was a record-setting year for taxpayer support of public education in Kansas and another new record will be set this year at $12,738 per-pupil.
If there are 28 students per class in Shawnee Mission, that’s a resource allocation issue. SMSD reports having one teacher for every 15.2 students, which is better than a few years ago.
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoMr. Trabert your numbers are intentionally misleading. Your $12000 number includes money that doesn’t make it into the classroom, like federal dollars for disabled students and funds that go towards teacher retirement accounts. It is not a resource allocation issue, but a lack of resource. As the parent of a child in a classroom with 28 students, it angers me greatly to hear you mischaracterize the courts decision. The court used the figure from the legislature’s own studies, and chose it as the middle ground number, rather than taking the approach that it should be higher based on higher costs and increased poverty in the districts. You speak on behalf of big business and ALEC. Your lack of regard for our students is appalling.
Teresa Statler-Throckmorton
2 months, 2 weeks agoMr. Trabert claimed at a Mainstream Coalition meeting last week that a national test—the NAEP— given to 4th graders is like the ACT exam and then went on to say that Florida students score higher than Kansas students. What he doesn’t say is that when Florida students who were retained in 3rd grade were retested in 8th grade, the gains were lost and Kansas students score higher. Mr. Trabert ignores the fact that the ACT and the SAT are taken as college preparedness measures and that Kansas students score much higher on both than Florida students. How do you compare 4th grade test results to 11th & 12th grade tests? Non-biased studies by Harvard Kennedy School Program Education Policy and Arizona State University Education Policy Institute reveal the long-term failure of 3rd grade retention, and we need a better solution. Please, most of all, we need honesty and full disclosure.
Dave Trabert
2 months, 2 weeks agoHeather - there’s nothing misleading about the facts. School funding has always included money that doesn’t go to the classroom, some of which is absolutely within the control of local school boards.
Total taxpayer support of public education has gone from $9,707 per-pupil in 2005 to $12,656 in 2012. That’s a 30% increase. Instruction spending is up 32% per-pupil (almost double the rate of inflation) from $5,177 to $6,824.
I am not at all mischaracterizing the court decision. The cost study used by the court did not include efficient use of taxpayer money. The authors of the study admitted it. I don’t know why the Sebelius administration didn’t object but the fact remains that no study has ever been conducted in Kansas to determine what is should cost to achieve required outcomes AND have schools organized and operating in a cost effective manner.
I’m sorry that you’re angry but we really are trying to improve public education and it has nothing to do with big or any other type business.
Jeffrey Sykes
2 months, 2 weeks agoMr. Trabert, at some point one has to question if you along with the folks who fund your agenda assume that all persons in Kansas are Gobemouches.
Why have all of these “reforms” been introduced after your recommended tax cuts have created a huge budget shortfall?
Why should the middle class be excited when the Governor’s raises taxes on middle class people by eliminating deductions to pay for cuts for businesses?
Why are you surprised when people are suspicious of you and your agenda when your “research” is bought and paid for by people who want to lower their own taxes without necessarily regarding the interests of ordinary middle class folks?
Newsflash: We are not all idiots. We can see what you and your agenda are doing. We are not pleased.
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoFrom the Tallman Education Report: http://tallmankasb.blogspot.com/2013/02/taxes-school-finance-and-kasb-testimony.html
“School operating budgets have already absorbed significant cuts.
School district general fund budgets are $190 million, or 6.8%, below the high level of funding 2009. (Each district’s general fund is determined by multiplying weighted enrollment by the base budget per pupil, and funded by the 20 mill statewide property tax, other local effort revenues, and general state aid.) School districts have partially offset those reductions by raising Local Option Budgets over $95 million. Special education state aid is largely unchanged since 2009, due to federal maintenance of effort requirements. As a result, school district operating budgets (general fund, LOB and special ed aid combined) are 2.3% below 2009.
Several important facts should be noted. First, statewide enrollment has increased by almost 2% since 2009, and total weighted enrollment is up 6.8%, mainly due to more students qualifying for free lunch and counting for at-risk weighting. Second, the consumer price index increased nearly 9.3% since 2009, so the “effective” cut in funding per pupil has been much larger than the dollar amount alone. Third, because there has been no increase in LOB state aid since 2009, additional LOB funding has been entirely financed by higher property taxes. Fourth, many districts have been unable to raise more LOB funding because they are at or near the state limit.
Although district budgets and state aid for general education operations have been reduced, other areas have increased. Since 2009, state aid for bond and interest payments have increased $35 million (although $22 million in capital outlay aid was eliminated), and KPERS contributions for school district employees $86 million. When additional local revenues for bond payments, capital outlay, food services, student fees and federal programs are included, total school district spending is higher than FY 2009. However, none of these funds are available for general education programs.”
so yes, if you count bond payments, KPERs (teacher retirement funds), food service costs and federal dollars, overall spending is up - but if you look at State Base Aid Per Pupil - which is what the Court was concerned with in the Montoy decision, IT IS DOWN - and that’s the number that matters, that’s the money that keeps our kids in reasonably sized class rooms with a reasonable amount of resources at the teacher’s disposal.
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoSorry, I should have also referenced the Gannon decision. For Kansans concerned about their kids’ education they should read this as well:
http://www.dockingblog.com/the-true-story-of-the-school-finance-lawsuit/
Written by the attorneys representing the districts, it excerpts points from the very long court opinion, and explains some of the history of how we got to where we are at now. They write:
The three-year plan called for funding increases in 2007, 2008 and 2009. School years 2007 and 2008 saw the agreed increases. School year 2009 started with increases, and then the cuts began. Through a series of seven cuts from 2009 through 2011 the state has cut $511M back out. To put this in perspective, the Montoy increases were calculated to increase funding by $755M per year. The funding went up $755M and then back down $511M. One might get the idea that the legislature “backed up” on their promise. The issue was that the increases were not “gratuitous,” the increases were not “gifts” bestowed by the legislature. The increases were found by the Supreme Court to be required to meet the mandates set by the Kansas Constitution. Our position was that there was no authority for cuts, absent a showing that school district costs went down. As all school boards, administrators and teachers know, the sour economy did not lower costs to educate kids, it increased them. In response to this state of affairs, SFFF authorized the Gannon suit to be filed. It was filed in 2010 in the District Court of Shawnee County in Topeka. The case was assigned to a special three-judge panel for trial. The panel consisted of Judge Theis from Topeka, Judge Burr from Goodland and Judge Fleming from Parsons – a geographically diverse panel of judges, from a mix of urban and rural areas. This three-judge panel system was designed by the legislature to avoid “activist” judges like Judge Bullock in Montoy – the legislative thought being, apparently, that a three-judge panel would avoid another “activist” judicial decision. (I guess it did not work out that way for them.) Trial was held in the summer of 2012. The case was tried by Alan Rupe, Jessica Skladzien, and John Robb. Trial lasted five weeks with 42 live witnesses and 662 exhibits, totaling 18,727 pages. The trial transcript contains 3,672 pages of trial testimony. The case was vigorously defended by the Attorney General’s office and outside counsel. The state had every opportunity to show that the finance system complied with the constitutional mandate. The three-judge panel issued the Gannon decision on January 11, 2013. The school finance system was again found unconstitutional “beyond any question.”
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoBack to the topic at hand - third grader retention, what’s interesting about this, is that not only have the supposed gains not panned at over the long term in Florida, similar legislation in neighboring states indicates substantial additional costs - costs which KS - with a legislature and Governor that has no intention of increasing funding, has not addressed. This will leave us, much like Oklahoma, with an expensive program that lacks funding. From OKpolicy.org http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50605/blastContent.jsp?emailblastKEY=1239264
“Oklahoma’s third-grade retention requirement was modeled on a policy in Florida that has demonstrated success in improving student achievement. However, Florida’s successful program involved not just retention, but also annual spending of $130 million for reading instruction in all grades and schools, with a strong emphasis on schools with many struggling readers. Adjusting for the smaller number of students in Oklahoma, an equivalent level of reading funding would be $31 million, which is five times more than Oklahoma has ever funded the RSA. In the past two budget years, Oklahoma has defunded the RSA entirely.”
So rather than have a system where parents, educators and administrators who are aware of the individual child’s needs and what is best for that child, we’ll have mandatory requirements that could adversely affect the kid, with no money to pay for it - or money lost from other early childhood education programs that have proven to be effective, setting other kids up for problems, and will improve test scores, because those poor scoring third graders won’t be in fourth grade.
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoAnd, I’d like to know where you are citing your 15 students to teacher ratio, because I know 100s of people in the SMSD - and not one of them, not one, has that kind of ratio in their classroom. Parents consider themselves lucky if the class size is less then 25 - cuts in the last few years have resulted in the loss of 400 teachers since 2009, closed 6 schools since 2007, no budget for library book purchases, raised the class size cap, closed an enhanced learning center and reduced EL staff, slashed supply budgets, instituted an activities fee at the high school, increased fees for bus service and for full-day kindergarten, reduced administrative staff, reduced janitorial staffing and reduced classroom cleaning from daily to once every 3 days. We are not debating efficiency, we are talking about a district operating at peak efficiency. SM and Kansas have some of the best teachers and administrators in the country and some of the best performing students. Dollar for dollar KS are getting a hellofadeal from our educators and support staff. But we will not be able to maintain our excellence, or even a level of “suitable” if the legislatures continue down this reckless and irresponsible path.
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoHere is Mr. Trabert’s bio from KPI: Dave Trabert is President of Kansas Policy Institute. He is a frequent speaker to business, legislative and civic groups and also does research and writes on fiscal policy and education issues. He is the author of “Kansas County Budget Analysis – In Search of Efficient Government,” “Volume III: Analysis of K-12 Spending in Kansas,” a primer on K-12 finance, and most recently “Removing Barriers to Better Public Education.” Trabert regularly testifies before Kansas House and Senate committees on state budget, tax and education issues. He also serves on the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force for the American Legislative Exchange Council and is a member of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice’s Speakers Bureau. He graduated cum laude from West Liberty State College with a degree in Business Administration.
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoAnd here is some info on ALEC: http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/ALECreportFINAL.pdf The American Legislative Exchange Council has been a major force in pushing for the privatization of public services and assets. This organization, which boasts of having more than 2,000 members, brings together state lawmakers, corporations, and conservative think tanks in an effort to push an agenda of “free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty.”1 As ALEC succinctly laid out in its 2011 publication, State Budget Reform Toolkit, “policymakers should embrace privatization and the competitive contracting of government services…” How does ALEC work? ALEC’s membership is currently divided into eight task forces: Civil Justice; Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development; Communications and Technology; Education; Energy, Environment, and Agriculture; Health and Human Services; International Relations; and Tax and Fiscal Policy. Until April 2012, ALEC’s task forces also included the Public Safety and Elections Task Force (known as the Criminal Justice Task Force until 2009), but the group disbanded this task force amidst controversy surrounding its role in introducing and advocating for laws that promote voter suppression and the so-called Stand Your Ground law.5 Corporations pay thousands of dollars to become private sector members of ALEC’s task forces. Legislators, on the other hand, only pay $50 per year to become members of ALEC. Accordingly, only about $100,000 of the organization’s $7 million budget comes from its public sector members.6 The rest of its funding is from corporate members and conservative think tanks and foundations (some of which are funded by the same corporations.) ALEC has more than 300 corporate members that pay between $7,000 and $25,000 (and may donate even more) to be a part of ALEC.7 These companies pay additional fees to sit on a task force and vote on model legislation. This money helps fund ALEC meetings and subsidize legislators’ travel expenses.8 Large conservative foundations also fund ALEC, including the Claude R. Lambe Foundation and the Charles G. Koch Foundation. Both of these organizations are run by Charles Koch, Chairman of Koch Industries, Inc. Koch Industries is also the parent company of Koch Companies Public Sector, the relatively new lobbying arm of the company.
Dave Trabert
2 months, 2 weeks agoHeather - SMSD reports having 1,743 teachers in 2012 and 26,546 students. That works out to 15.23 students per teacher. Both are shown in full time equivalents as reported to KSDE. Teacher and other employment data is at http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1870 We’ve downloaded it all and summarized by district at http://www.kansasopengov.org/SchoolDistricts/Employment/tabid/2118/Default.aspx
Of course, class size is a different matter. Schools districts employ some teachers who don’t actually teach kids; they teach teachers. And most teachers don’t teach a full day.
I don’t doubt that you were told the district lost 400 teachers since 2009 but their employment reports show otherwise. Teacher employment was 1,916 in 2009 and 1,743 in 2012. Also, teacher employment was 1,793 in 2005 or 15.6 students per teacher. The district lost 1,329 students since then but only 50 teachers, so the student /teacher ratio is actually a little better than in 2005. But again, class size may not be smaller if there are more non-teaching teachers or classroom teachers are spending less time teaching than in 2005.
Dave Trabert
2 months, 2 weeks agoHeather - your post from the Oklahoma group admitted that Florida’s 3rd grade reading initiative was successful. Their complaint was about funding.
It’s true that Florida allocated a lot of money to their program but it’s also true that they were able to do this with better resource allocation. Even funding all of those programs, Florida still spends almost $1,000 per-pupil less than Kansas on current spending (no capital or debt). Kansas could easily find the money for these programs (and pay teachers more) by combining a lot of outside-the-classroom functions across district lines.
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoMr. Trabert, I’m not ignoring you, but am not able to fully respond at this time. I will return to continue this conversation. And I don’t believe we’ve reached a level of familiarity that involves first names. As for Kansas easily finding funding for anything right now, that is laughable. You are aware that the SMSD had an excellent efficiency rating from Standard and Poor? As did BV. As for the Pupil Teacher Ratio, that includes all the teachers in a school, the music teachers, the librarians the speech paths, all of whom provide valuable skills, experience and needed expertise. It is disingenuous to suggest, as you did in your post, that 1 teacher per 15 students means that classroom size is 15, or that better efficiency, when SM is already operating at peak efficiency, could get class size down. I linked to the OK page to provide info on the cost of Brownback’s retention program, money that has to come from somewhere. The Florida program didn’t work, later test scores showed whatever small gains were lost by FL students later on. You sir, have an agenda to portray our schools negatively, to lead our state down a privatization path on behalf of the business community that wants to escape paying taxes and could care less about our schools and our kids. As a parent, I stand with our teachers, who have consistently delivered a quality product with ever shrinking resources. Resources you would have smaller. We do know how much a quality education costs in this state, the legislature’s own studies have revealed the number. The courts have ordered it to be paid. Side issues like this are brought up to distract the public from the fact that if the legislature made good on its obligations a program like this would be unnecessary, and to allow the Governor to pay lip service to work on literacy. I’ll return.
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoAlright, the districts info provides that the pupil teacher ration for 2012 is 17 - not 15.2, and that there has been a gradual increase over the last fews - if that’s what you mean by “better” - then we have a different definition of what constitutes improvement. http://repository.smsd.org/docs/public/district/10CB66GPB7/Enrollment-Trends-2012-13.pdf
What this also provides is that we’ve lost 53 teachers and 75 special ed teachers. I will retract my previous comment that we lost 400 teachers, but until I can confirm whether there were additional staff lost along with those 138 teachers, I’ll stand firm on the number. As for class size, the district requires that class size be as close to the maximum allotments as possible (you know, to be efficient), and that elementary students in 2-3 grade that’s 29, and for 4-6 that is 30. It’s all well good that the district provides that the average class size is around 21, but the tricky thing about averages, is that some people on one end of the spectrum aren’t getting as good a deal.
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoFurther more, we haven’t really addressesd the crux of the issue here - and that is fact that an unprecedented number of bills, all aimed or connected in some way to education, that have been drafted by ALEC, pushed for by KPI, presented by legislators to whom you have developed a rapport with, and to whom you have lobbied, have been voted on and unfortunately passed. This starts with the constitutional amendment on how a suitable education is determined and how judges are appointed (after all, what better way to get around a pesky opinion then to get a new judge!), includes attempts to silence the organization that would lobby against these very proposals (the teachers’ union), and runs to seemingly “neutral” bills like this one, that are in fact bills designed to strengthen ALEC’s and KPI’s agendas of privatization and lowering taxes. I would also include along these lines the “innovation school district” SB 176/HB 2319 that unfortunately passed yesterday, that opts out entire districts from the requirements that their teachers be certified. Come on! Who in their right mind thinks that it is an improvement to not require the professionals that engage and educate are students be certified? Oh, wait, I know, people who want to pay bottom dollor for education and don’t give a patooti what that ultimately means for our kids.
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoParents of Kansas our legislators are doing real harm. And there has been a definate pattern of who has bought the misinformation bought and paid for by KPI - the following legislators from the 913 area have not voted well, and could use a contact from their constituants: Senators DENNING, MELCHER, PILCHER-COOK, and SMITH and Representatives BRUCHMAN, ESAU, GROSSERODE, HILDABRAND, KINZER, MEIGS, RUBIN and TODD. These individuals passed the innovative school district bill yesterday, and have a history of voting against our schools, our teachers’ unions, and our kids. Let them know that it is imperative to fund our schools, to leave the constitution alone, and to pay the bills they are obligated to pay. We don’t want non-certified teachers in Kansas - anywhere in KS. We do not want to participate in a race to the worst. If you are in the mood to contact reps, you could also offer thanks to Senator Wolf and Representatives Bollier, Clayton, Lusk, Perry and Rooker for standing with our schools.
Hey, and while you are at, there is a legislative forum TODAY, Saturday, March 9 featuring Senator Greg Smith, Represenatives Amanda Grosserode, Brett Hildabrand, Keith Esau and Lance Kinzer. 11:30-12:30, Lenexa Conference Center, 11184 Lackman Road between Santa Fe and College Boulevard. You could come out and hear from some of those who keep voting against the interests of Kansas students.
Heather Ousley
2 months, 2 weeks agoFrom the other opinion article on the subject of the 3rd grade literacy bill, which also hints at the privatization scheme underlying all this:
Brownback’s plan — which we most certainly have not heard the last of — called for spending $6 million next year on grants to nonprofit organizations that would design and run reading programs for elementary school students. Those groups would be chosen by an entity called the Children’s Cabinet, which, as you probably guessed, is not overflowing with educators.
Democratic state Sen. Anthony Hensley of Topeka told KCPT that the plan was essentially a way to start privatizing education. “The governor now controls the Children’s Cabinet,” Hensley said. “He does not control the Department of Education, so he would much prefer to have control over the $6 million so he can basically give this to, I would suspect, faith-based organizations.”
Read more here: http://joco913.com/news/sarah-smith-nessel-cookie-cutter-literacy-crusade-is-a-disservice-to-special-needs-kids/#storylink=cpy
Mr. Rose, I have been reading your column, on and off, for what seems like my entire life. I have seen your face next to opinion bylines forever. I remember the Sun, and I don’t always disagree with your assessments. I thought you were spot on when describing Kobach as seeking a fiefdom. I think you missed the mark on this one. To be fair, everyone is in favor of 3rd graders being literate. I just think that this bill won’t make them any more literate, it will remove dollars from programs that work and give them to private entities under more direct control of the governor, and is part of a larger push to do serious harm to our schools. Mr. Trabert is a huckster selling policy dreamt up by big business. It’s time to pull the curtain back and see him and his agenda for what it really is.
It is time to stand with the students. It is time to stand with the teachers. It is time to stand with the schools.