Editors praise literacy gains by Charleston's educators

On the upside, in a note published in yesterday's Post and Courier of Charleston, editors praised the work being done by Charleston's classroom educators to improve literacy in the area. On the downside, the editors didn't actually bring themselves to mention that Charleston's classroom educators were doing the work. An otherwise terrific editorial rings tinny for that deficiency.

The editors begin with a little context; it seems no balm can be appreciated without first administering the sting.

For years, area employers have lamented the sorry reading and writing skills that all too many job candidates have exhibited. Things appear to be looking up.

A better introduction might have read, "The nation's earliest advocates of an informed citizenry and voting electorate recommended a system of free public schools to promote universal education. Despite bumps in Charleston's record of promoting literacy among its youth, we now appear to moving toward the enlightenment that early American heroes suggested." After all, an overweening reliance on the sensitivities of corporate interests has yielded the culture we have; it is the status quo against which many educators struggle.

Nonetheless, the editors see progress, and progress is always good.

They celebrate:

A new report shows that Charleston County public school students who have received special reading instruction have made significant improvements in literacy.

Yet the praise is faint and streaked with self-congratulation.

It also suggests that the problem isn't just students who have difficulty learning, but that for years the schools have been approaching the problem in the wrong way. It was after The Post and Courier in 2009 reported on devastating literacy problems in local schools that the Charleston County School Board wisely made it the district's number one priority to address literacy.

Ultimately, Superintendent Nancy McGinley is the subject of the editors' appreciation. Again, it might have made a more graceful editorial, had the editors highlighted the education professionals who work with children daily to overcome the stresses and impediments that life in Charleston provides to children needing the additional aid, but those rank-and-file educators in South Carolina have long been used to toiling without recognition.

A healthy local and state economy demands an educated workforce. And it is encouraging that the district is searching for, and finding, ways to fill that need and to give students tools to make their lives more meaningful.

Dr. McGinley's literacy program is working because it is mandatory and has consequences for those enrolled. Students reading below grade level must participate or they will not be allowed to go to the next grade.

It isn't punishment. It's the opposite. Punishment is what the district had been doing: allowing students who couldn't read on a first grade level, to pass to the second grade where they were even more at sea.

The bump in literacy shows what a coordinated effort involving teachers, parents, school administrators and board members can produce. The district's literacy policy tells students that they can, and must, learn to read.

No exceptions.

Well-put by editors in America's first, and most consistent, city of exception.

Cheraw Primary promotes summer reading among youngsters

What a great idea. Is it possible to replicate this program for all of South Carolina's first- and second-graders? The Cheraw Chronicle explains:

Cheraw Primary participated in the Summer Reading Project sponsored by the South Carolina Department of Education May 23-24. As part of the program, all students in first and second grade were able to choose twelve books from a selection of over sixty titles of children’s literature to read.

Classrooms were set up similar to a book store where students could browse and select the books they wished to read. These books will become part of their home libraries.

Over the course of the summer, the children will read the books provided by the project, and with the help of parents, record their total reading times on calendars and discuss the books with each other.

When school begins in the fall, there will be a special program at the school to discuss the positive experiences related to the project, and to talk about research relating to children and reading.

Cheraw Primary School is excited the program which helps to maintain and improve reading skills in students, when given access to books throughout the summer.

To lower dropout rates, teach young children to love reading

Sometimes, the simplest solutions are the best ones.

A study from the Annie E. Casey Foundation suggests that we should start addressing the dropout problem well before children become teenagers. It turns out that reading to small children, and encouraging them to read, may be the most effective strategy to reduce the high school dropout rate.

It's a challenge, sure. South Carolina's lawmakers have never been keen on long-term strategies, as the business community measures its profits and losses in quarterly reports. But if we're serious about fixing the dropout rate, maybe we ought to pay attention to this one.

Children who aren't reading proficiently by third grade are four times more likely not to graduate high school than their peers with higher reading skills, according to a report issued Friday.

Students in low-income families fared even worse in a longitudinal study of 3,975 children born between 1979 and 1989, according to Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation, a report commissioned by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and presented during the Education Writers Association's national conference in New Orleans.

"We will never close the achievement gap, we will never solve our dropout crisis, we will never break the cycle of poverty that afflicts so many children if we don't make sure that all our students learn to read," said Ralph Smith, the foundation's executive vice president, in a statement. "This research confirms the compelling need to address the underlying issues that keep children from reading."

The Casey study finds that one-sixth of third-graders who don't read on a third-grade level don't graduate on time. Of those third-graders measured to have the lowest skills level -- "below basic" -- almost one-fourth drop out, compared with nine percent of children who demonstrate the "basic" skills level and four percent of those who demonstrate "proficient" reading skills.

A second large theme found by the Casey study is the role of childhood poverty.

Overall, 22 percent of children who have lived in poverty do not graduate high school, compared with 6 percent who have never been poor. And 32 percent of students spending more than half their childhood in poverty do not finish high school on time.

For children who were in poverty at least one year and who were not reading proficiently in third grade, 26 percent didn't graduate on time -- more than six times the rate for all proficient readers.

It would seem to be self-evident, wouldn't it, that children lacking fundamental resources in the home -- clean water, good nutrition, a book here or there -- would have a harder time gaining the basic skills necessary to succeed in school. Yet despite study after study demonstrating these conclusions in clear, incontrovertible terms, South Carolina continues to leave large populations of its children in poverty. The 2010 census suggests that something approaching half of the state's children suffer there now.

The Casey study's full conclusions are outlined here, and the writers at the Augusta Chronicle suggest that "if those trends hold beyond the study group, Georgia and South Carolina have tougher challenges than many other states."

In Georgia, only 29 percent of fourth-graders scored at or above the proficient level on National Assessment of Educational Progress reading tests in 2009. In South Carolina, the rate was 28 percent; and nationally, it was 33.

Facing an even more difficult challenge, based on 2010 poverty levels, are Burke County (83.6 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, a measure of poverty), Richmond County (74 percent), McDuffie County (71.6 percent), Edgefield County (58.3 percent) and Aiken County (56.7 percent).

So, what lessons should we take from the Casey study?

"These findings suggest we need to work in three arenas: improving the schools where these children are learning to read, helping the families weighed down by poverty and encouraging better federal, state and local policy to improve the lot of both schools and families," said Donald J. Hernandez, a sociology professor who conducted the study.

Sounds costly, which means the legislature will likely leave it to a future legislature to handle, when the economy improves. For now, we've got budget cuts to enact -- and drivers licenses to take away from teenagers missing school.