Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 19, 2008

Click here to view bill details.

The language in this bill needs clarification. What type of evaluation, done by whom? Evaluating a child in 1st grade within 30 days is too soon to determine if a reading disability exists. This runs contrary to the RTI (Response to Instruction) model. You can certainly screen a child informally to obtain their reading level and this is already routinely done in all grade levels.

Yet another mandate placed on public schools (and only public schools I noticed). Ms. Clack needs to be educated herself on a few facts of life regarding reading difficulties. First, her proposal is not needed. First grade teachers (as well as the other grades) already do informal oral reading samples with their students to determine where they are in their skills. Second, her desire to slap a kid with a label of having a "reading disability" within 30 days of starting school is premature. This flies in the face of the Response to Instruction (RTI) model that many, if not most, school districts are moving to. Her 30 day time frame does not allow for any time to investigate the child's strengths and weaknesses, design appropriate interventions, implement them and obtain results.

How can you diagnose what you already know they can not do. Few if any can read at this age. What services will be offered? And who will pay?

This is way too soon to label kids with disabilities, after 30 days of instruction, especially if you dont have kids memorize words, and use phonics. And as boys are a little slower at reading than girls when they are so young, it is anti boys.

This is what happens when you let politicians loose on education. These people know absolutely nothing about educationally sound practices and they certainly don't listen to people who do. This bill is badly flawed. First of all, 1st grade is a watershed year in terms of reading development. Every year, I see children enter in Sept. as non-readers and leave in June as readers. Many of them inch along in their skills until about Christmas and then the switch flips and they take off. This bill seeks to label those children as reading disabled. Secondly, apparently these politicians are not aware that once you declare a child as disabled in any way or act as if you suspect a disability, they are then entitled to a whole host of Federal legal protections that children without disabilities are not entitled to. That alone would have a huge financial and educational impact on the schools. Third, this bill runs contrary to the move by the Federal government toward the Response to Instruction model to determine reading disabilities. Finally, if this bill is such a good idea according to the sponsors, why does it only include the public schools? Why not the private schools also? What is the real agenda here?

People do not understand how children develop. Children develop at different rates. I have seen children who are 10 years old and cannot read well. By the time they're 12, they are reading college science books. It is not good for a child's well-being to constantly be compared to their peers and be expected to be just like them. All children are different. One child may do well with a certain reading program, other children may not learn to read well with it. One child may be developmentally ready to read at 2 years old, another child at 8. Both of my children are reading well, and they learned at their own time with no pressure and stress from adults and peers. Patti