If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Capital Journal)   Proposed South Dakota bill would fail kids with reading problems. Bill is flunked by a clinical psychologist. Fark: Subby is the psychologist, who found out about the bill on Fark   (capjournal.com) divider line 154
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

3738 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jan 2014 at 9:11 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



154 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-27 12:35:52 PM

CaptainToast: Why would it be considered unethical to take children meeting suitability criteria for two separate educational strategies and flip a coin to determine which one they get? How is this less ethical than a lottery system to determine which school a child goes to? The lottery is also chance-based, also determines the educational strategies used, and also determines their peer group. There has been some interesting work done using these lotteries to determine the effects of magnet schools on educational attainment.

You'd have significant issues with this experiment, even at the internal ethics panel level.

First and foremost, you're dealing with a minor whose safety and wellbeing have been entrusted to a school system. Any decision that is made has to be made with the best interest of ALL children involved, not just the lucky ones. So on that alone you'd have a difficult time running this experiment.

Second, because they're minors we can't expect them to agree to this with any reasonable understanding as to what they've agreed to. Even if you got the parents to sign consent forms, what you're doing wouldn't pass muster for an ethics panel simply because of the possible consequences to their child- nobody wants to be caught holding that bag of crap when it falls apart.


There was a time when that was the common attitude towards randomized control trials and children. Today, the medical and legislative community tends to believe that evidence-based medicine has value. Withholding evidence-based medicine from women and children by excluding them from trials is less acceptable now.

When preparing an NIH grant, you need to provide specific and compelling reasons to exclude women and/or children from a study. Parental/guardian consent is, of course, required for the children. Many of these studies involve much, much more serious interventions than simply holding a child back a year.
 
2014-01-27 12:36:26 PM

draypresct: HeathenHealer: After reading more about this bill it appears everyone here can settle down. One legislator from Eagle Butte proposed this bill with very little support (another legislator wanted to include 3rd grade). It's fairly amusing that someone from Eagle Butte would propose this because it wouldn't even apply to his schools (Reservation covered under Bureau of Indian Education).
It's never going to become law and not being seriously considered. They didn't even propose any specific assessment tool for determining who would be held back. Move along folks, nothing to see...

What kind of academic are you, cutting off an interesting discussion just because it doesn't apply to the real world. :)


Sorry! It's an interesting discussion (whether or not to hold kids back) but I was genuinely shocked to see this because I live in South Dakota and had not heard about this bill. I guess that's because no one around here is taking it seriously. I'm glad the rest of the country is busy looking out for us simpletons in South Dakota!!
 
2014-01-27 12:38:28 PM

lennavan: Aidan: So far, I can say that intervention does help. But there's also an upper limit. At some point, the kid is basically one-on-one with a teacher (not my kid, thank the twisted gods that watch over him). At some point, there's something so not-working in the kid's head that no amount of extra work, help, or fish oil pills is going to make them get better. I really don't know what to do when that happens, and I'm only pathetically grateful that my child is NOW progressing. Not up to grade, and not quickly, but measurably.

There are cases like that where kids can't improve but I don't believe they occur very often.  I have volunteered at a grade school working one-on-one with dyslexic kids in the past and you can see spectacular results.  Problem is it takes one-on-one work.  Before (and after I left) me, the teacher just didn't have the time to spend one-on-one because of all the other students.

Honestly with kids that require this much attention, I think the best thing to do would be to pull them out of the public schools where the rest of the kids go and build a lot more schools that specialize in these types of students.  Of course that would require a shiat ton of funding so it's never gonna happen.


Separate schools would be interesting, but there are the dangers of a) stigma and b) enforced restriction to one school or another, ignoring any changes in test results. Really, the geographical separation of the groups is my concern there.

However, I still think tracking (whatever it's called when students pursue different tracks in the same school) is not a horrible idea. Decouple it from age, and that would reduce the stigma involved. Maybe. I dunno. :)
 
2014-01-27 12:40:01 PM
Only marginally on the topic but....

Petitioned to have my oldest start first grade one year ahead of when she should because she was smart.  Not just smart but spooky smart.  Grumbling by the principal, but we were successful.  In third grade, we moved her to a "talented and gifted" program where she excelled - mixed classes with multiple grade levels.  When it came time for her to move to middle school (Jr. High) we held her back a year - same classroom, same teacher and many of the same students because of the mixed grade classroom.  We did it because we felt she wasn't mature enough to successfully deal with the social trials and tribulations of middle school.  It worked.  Since then she's graduated University with a degree in physics and is currently working on her PhD.

/100% on SAT
//100% on GRE
//Spooky smart....
I think she gets it from her mom.
 
2014-01-27 12:41:27 PM
so, was this opinion based on your clinical psychology background or based on the popular opinion espoused that day on Fark?
 
2014-01-27 12:48:49 PM

Kome: draypresct: It is not unethical to withhold a treatment of uncertain value. Control group patients have been given surgery (holes drilled in their heads, but withholding the vital element of the surgery) before.

You do realize that this isn't the medical field, right? Other scientific disciplines, whether physical, life, cognitive, or social, have their own canons of ethics that are discussed and determined by their respectively recognized experts. It's for the same reason you couldn't conduct a double-blind RCT to test some of the interpretations comparing feral children to children not abandoned or neglected by their parents. From a pragmatic standpoint, you'd need informed consent by parents/guardians, as well as the children's own assent to be in such a study. Not to mention sham treatments in medical research are often disguised in order to prevent demand characteristics, whereas it's impossible to disguise in any way which children were promoted to the next grade and which were retained, introducing a host of other damaging confounds. Oh, and hey, the researchers themselves would also be pretty aware of which condition the children ended up in, so more confounds are introduced. Also, given the established literature thus far, problems notwithstanding, this isn't an "uncertain value." The medical model for conducting research is simply woefully inadequate to study these types of phenomena. Ergo, other methods are used. And, heck, even a good deal of valid and important medical research has been conducted in a way that doesn't conform to the strict medical model, so maybe don't knock methods that have demonstrated utility because they don't satisfy your personal assumptions of how best to investigate a particular issue. Interdisciplinary disdain is an ugly thing.


Despite your blanket statement of different standards in your field, the experiment of randomizing kids to different educational strategies is already being done. Every time you have a lottery for a magnet school, it's a randomization of kids into the more desirable/less desirable schools. Some interesting literature has been published based on these experiments. Are you planning on writing these journals and school districts and informing them that they're violating ethical considerations from your field?

Your issues of the inability to blind the treatments or experimentation on childrend who cannot provide consent have, and continue to be dealt with in the medical literature. I urge you to check out this NIH page on the subject of inclusion of children. Most grants now require specific and compelling reasons to exclude children (and women), simply because the benefits of evidence-based medicine should not be limited to treatments that are commonly used on adult men.

Your description of a study of feral children is a strawman. Abandoning children to the wild is not an accepted method of raising children; promotion v. retention are two strategies being used on children today.

Also, given the established literature thus far, problems notwithstanding, this isn't an "uncertain value."

If you've never done a randomized study, if you have problems even identifying the comparison group for the studies that have been performed, then this is a treatment of 'uncertain value'. Again, why not* randomize children to the two treatments? That way, you'll know the answer.

/*The real answer, I suspect, is that randomized intervention trials cost money, while observational studies of existing policies just cost grad student time.
 
2014-01-27 12:53:34 PM

HeathenHealer: draypresct: HeathenHealer: After reading more about this bill it appears everyone here can settle down. One legislator from Eagle Butte proposed this bill with very little support (another legislator wanted to include 3rd grade). It's fairly amusing that someone from Eagle Butte would propose this because it wouldn't even apply to his schools (Reservation covered under Bureau of Indian Education).
It's never going to become law and not being seriously considered. They didn't even propose any specific assessment tool for determining who would be held back. Move along folks, nothing to see...

What kind of academic are you, cutting off an interesting discussion just because it doesn't apply to the real world. :)

Sorry! It's an interesting discussion (whether or not to hold kids back) but I was genuinely shocked to see this because I live in South Dakota and had not heard about this bill. I guess that's because no one around here is taking it seriously. I'm glad the rest of the country is busy looking out for us simpletons in South Dakota!!


I'm glad it's not an actual issue. Using state legislation to control aspects of education this specific would be kind of like fine-tuning a violin with a plumber's wrench.
 
2014-01-27 12:53:39 PM

Aidan: Separate schools would be interesting, but there are the dangers of a) stigma and b) enforced restriction to one school or another, ignoring any changes in test results. Really, the geographical separation of the groups is my concern there.


Well, we're discussing a dream world where we have bypassed the derp and decided to enact things that would actually improve education.  I think if we can imagine a world where we build schools to help kids who need additional/more support, then imagining students can move between schools based on academic improvement isn't a far stretch.

Yes, there will be stigma but keeping students who are behind in a class causes bigger issues.  It either holds the rest of the class back, or it leaves the one student further and further behind (or a little of both).  Plus, even if you leave the kid in the "normal" school any intervention will come along with stigma.  It's not like the other students won't/don't know.  All of the kids in the "intervention" school will all be getting intervention, so on a daily basis, there should be significantly less pressure/stigma.  I'd imagine that climate will be even better to learn in.

Aidan: However, I still think tracking (whatever it's called when students pursue different tracks in the same school) is not a horrible idea. Decouple it from age, and that would reduce the stigma involved. Maybe. I dunno. :)


That wouldn't help stigma.  You would have classes where 4th graders who don't read as well are in classes with kids years younger with them.  That's a lotta embarrassment right there.  One way private schools deal with this is to do both.  All kids of a specific age are in "second grade."  But there are multiple different math levels for instance within second grade for each kid to go to depending on their ability.  The problem with doing it this way is it costs a farking fortune.  In a normal sized school with say 75 kids, rather than 3 classes max size 25 you might teach 1 advanced class with 10 kids, 1 remedial class with 10 kids and 2-3 classes for the rest.  That's more 1 more class that needs to get taught.  Apply it for all grades and subjects and you're talking about a lot more teachers and physical space (need more rooms to do it).
 
2014-01-27 12:54:32 PM

Dog Man: I was "gifted" in school and took gifted classes. It was a pain in the ass because of the poor way the school implemented the program...

Thinking about it now, it's probably a factor in my being a bit socially awkward.


Being my entire background is gifted education, in particular program development, I would place emphasis on these two statements. Acceleration, enrichment clusters, and other services which get cognitive peers together have positive academic, cognitive, social, and emotional outcomes with proper implementation; without, students feel bounced around and out of place.

 

A Cave Geek: "grades" should go away.  Replace them with 'skill levels'.  You don't move on to the next 'level' until you've proven you an master the one you're at.  We have a really stupid notion in this country that all kids advance in all subjects at the same rate.  They don't.


We have two major problems to this in the general public school system. For many people, "grades" and "mastery" are synonymous, but of course grades are static almost without exception and thus show a snapshot rather than building of skills and knowledge. But this problem of perception and how scoring in academics work is small, especially compared to our semester or half-semester or year long structure for an extensive subject or entire grade level. The idea a student needs to repeat each major concept presented over nine weeks in geometry until mastered is a massive waste of time and resources for all involved, and our system has no support built in to isolate which foundations are lacking or concepts are a struggle. Consider the worse situation where a student has to repeat a year of mathematics, science, social studies, and language arts because reading skill is insufficient.

What has to happen is a significant rework of the mastery system as opposed to grading, yes, but our education system has to allow for dynamism between classes which should be far smaller subjects which show clear connection between mastery of this before entrance to that.
 
2014-01-27 12:57:37 PM

Vangor: We have two major problems to this in the general public school system. For many people, "grades" and "mastery" are synonymous, but of course grades are static almost without exception and thus show a snapshot rather than building of skills and knowledge. But this problem of perception and how scoring in academics work is small, especially compared to our semester or half-semester or year long structure for an extensive subject or entire grade level. The idea a student needs to repeat each major concept presented over nine weeks in geometry until mastered is a massive waste of time and resources for all involved, and our system has no support built in to isolate which foundations are lacking or concepts are a struggle. Consider the worse situation where a student has to repeat a year of mathematics, science, social studies, and language arts because reading skill is insufficient.

What has to happen is a significant rework of the mastery system as opposed to grading, yes, but our education system has to allow for dynamism between classes which should be far smaller subjects which show clear connection between mastery of this before entrance to that.


You wrote that much more eloquently than I had time to.  Well said.
 
2014-01-27 01:03:16 PM

Vangor: Being my entire background is gifted education, in particular program development,


*perks up*

Ooh! Where?! In... Florida...?

*brain strips a gear*
 
2014-01-27 01:06:50 PM
Interesting. Subby, tell me about your mother.
 
2014-01-27 01:13:46 PM

A Cave Geek: "grades" should go away.  Replace them with 'skill levels'.  You don't move on to the next 'level' until you've proven you an master the one you're at.  We have a really stupid notion in this country that all kids advance in all subjects at the same rate.  They don't.


Part of the benefit of yearly courses include the value gained by repetition. Proving you "master" the one you're at is just a much more naked and direct version of 'teaching to the test', wherein the pupil is not required to retain any knowledge at all.

As we move further into a plugged in, Connected age with the knowledge of history at our fingertips, some of this makes sense, but certain skills such as math and reading still need to be not only "mastered" but be, to a fair point, so highly ingrained that they are instinctive.

/ I'm with the ones disagreeing with subby, for reasons already eloquently given by other farkers
 
2014-01-27 01:28:37 PM
draypresct: I wouldn't want to compare the progression of an under-performing student under educational strategy X to the "average" student progression; I would want to compare it to the progression of a similarly under-performing student (preferably randomly selected) under a different strategy.

It isn't an exact comparison. Like this one, which I pulled from that first pdf, is studying if retention gets students closer or farther from average performance.

"No strategy" (students roam the streets?) isn't really a viable option here.

Obviously it would be better to do something effective but if grade retention programs are worse than the current standard it is better to not do them.

This is a different question. I had assumed that this low bar had already been cleared - if grade retention in a given school was no better than letting students roam the streets, I would have some very pointed questions about that school system.

Grade retention programs show a big increase in student drop out rates. So if it is worse to wander the streets than be in school that is an argument against grade retention.

I think the issue you're talking about is how it is possible for another year of school to not progress a child. The answer is that if a child is performing way below standards then there are often issues outside of the school interfering. A chaotic home life, an undiagnosed learning disability, that sort of thing. Without targeting those specific problems the student will have the same troubles regardless of how much schooling they get. Social promotion isn't better at addressing this but doesn't have the negative effects that grade retention seems to have,
 
2014-01-27 01:31:03 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
Fun fact: South Dakota used to use the same nickname as Florida

/that's the actual first flag of South Dakota, pre-Mount Rushmore
//they only changed the text in 1992
 
2014-01-27 01:35:28 PM
So Subby believes it's ok to pass students without the basics? You're what's wrong with our society.


We obviously don't have enough snowflakes on the planet, so let's turn the snow machines on! When are we going to stop letting the ass-hats with made-up credentials tell everyone else how they should be doing things? Broken people making broken rules makes for a broken society.
 
2014-01-27 01:38:54 PM

draypresct: Despite your blanket statement of different standards in your field, the experiment of randomizing kids to different educational strategies is already being done. Every time you have a lottery for a magnet school, it's a randomization of kids into the more desirable/less desirable schools. Some interesting literature has been published based on these experiments. Are you planning on writing these journals and school districts and informing them that they're violating ethical considerations from your field?


Schools are not laboratories. The policies by which schools are run can be based off of studies in the developmental, cognitive, and social sciences - whether observational studies in ecologically valid settings such as schools or experiments conducted in laboratory settings - but those policies are not in and of themselves research agenda. That researchers can observe situations like the magnet school stuff, or VPK, or what happens when funding cuts occur in this region but not that region, etc. does not equate to a proper experiment designed to investigate a particular topic or set of topics.

draypresct: Your issues of the inability to blind the treatments or experimentation on childrend who cannot provide consent have, and continue to be dealt with in the medical literature. I urge you to check out this NIH page on the subject of inclusion of children. Most grants now require specific and compelling reasons to exclude children (and women), simply because the benefits of evidence-based medicine should not be limited to treatments that are commonly used on adult men.


Those issues are not relevant for figuring out what happens when school policies change. Now we're not even talking about the difference between medical science and non-medical science, we're talking about the difference between scientific investigation and public policy decisions. That's not even the same sport, much less the same ballpark.

draypresct: Your description of a study of feral children is a strawman. Abandoning children to the wild is not an accepted method of raising children; promotion v. retention are two strategies being used on children today.


The analogy was to illustrate that there are ethical implications with conducting an experiment on X topic that you are simply not considering. That you decided to read too much into it does not take away from the fact that such an experiment would be deemed unethical by any and every institutional review board in the United States, and likely every other first-world country.

draypresct: If you've never done a randomized study, if you have problems even identifying the comparison group for the studies that have been performed, then this is a treatment of 'uncertain value'. Again, why not* randomize children to the two treatments? That way, you'll know the answer.

/*The real answer, I suspect, is that randomized intervention trials cost money, while observational studies of existing policies just cost grad student time.


Talk about a strawman. My first-hand experience with experimental design is not the issue (but, being a published scientist in neuroscience, cognitive science, and social science, I do want to politely tell you to f*ck off for even thinking it appropriate to attack my position in such a manner). And, hell, between the two of us, you're the one who has trouble identifying the comparison groups in the studies that have been performed because by your own admission you didn't even read the source material that has been linked in this thread, nor have you read the studies that those policy briefs (read: not studies, but summaries) were abstracted from. Your suspicions as to why those experiments are not being carried out do not even rise to the level of simply being wrong. School policies are not scientific experiments to be conducted. They are policies put in place, primarily by politicians  and not scientists, from which interested researchers can subsequently examine and analyze. You are imposing a perspective on the discussion which is not appropriate for the content being discussed. That is your own failure, and not the burden of the research you are criticizing.
 
2014-01-27 01:43:20 PM

Kome: School policies are not scientific experiments to be conducted.


But they should be.  That way we'd know if the changes being made will be helpful or not.  This exact line is what the Chicago Public Teachers Union loves to spout.  "Our kids are failing, we want to try X, Y or Z"  Union:  "WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING EXPERIMENTS ON OUR CHILDREN."  So I guess we'll just try nothing and then politicians will enact policies based on nothing then.
 
2014-01-27 01:53:29 PM

Aidan: I am in the trenches on this one right now. Son's getting super-duper intervention, and last year I asked the teachers to hold him back (in grade 2, when he was getting even MORE intervention with no results), and they were all "omg no". I do understand their reasoning - which is exactly what you said.

So far, I can say that intervention does help. But there's also an upper limit. At some point, the kid is basically one-on-one with a teacher (not my kid, thank the twisted gods that watch over him). At some point, there's something so not-working in the kid's head that no amount of extra work, help, or fish oil pills is going to make them get better. I really don't know what to do when that happens, and I'm only pathetically grateful that my child is NOW progressing. Not up to grade, and not quickly, but measurably.

Conclusion: Big uncomfortable topic for everyone. I do agree that intervention is so far our best tool for these kids. Holding back or passing without help are not.


Here is my CSB:

My youngest was not exactly a steller student in grade school (k-5). She had reading issues at first and always struggled with math. We worked on her reading all the time and by 5th grade she was reading like a champ. Now in 8th grade is had read LotR  once and The Hobbit twice. We enrolled her in Kumon for a year to help with her math.

She has had straight A's for 2 years.
 
2014-01-27 01:55:18 PM
So when do we start "socially failing" the assholes, idiots, and mouthbreathing dumbfarks, if we're going to subscribe to this idea of "social promotion?"

Just think of how many Senators would still be in third grade...
 
2014-01-27 02:01:48 PM
odinsposse:

That's not to say that social promotion is an awesome policy. It's just that grade retention isn't a fix for kids who can't read. Kids who are held back tend to do worse later on than socially promoted kids and it raises risk factors in lots of behavior like dropping out.

The real answer if a kid can't read is that there needs to be intervention to help them catch up. Making them repeat the same process that didn't help them in the first place isn't a solution. But you've tapped into the problem with education right now which is that it is a complicated subject but laws that look like they are "getting tough" on education make people feel like politicians are doing something.


Agreed.  My anecdotal experience is that being held back was damn near like tattooing "Guaranteed No Future" to a kids forehead back when I was in K-6.  The ones I remember never recovered.

Most of the kids that moved ahead in spite of poor grades, turned out ok.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-27 02:14:21 PM
Why does someone in California feel they need to tell South Dakotans how to educate their children?
Get your own house in order.
 
2014-01-27 02:20:17 PM
First, good job Subby,

Second, being a psychologist on fark must be like being a mechanic in a junkyard, everywhere you look there is work to be done.

Third, I fully understand, I was terrible at reading when I was young, but excellent at math. I didn't actually progress in reading until late high school and probably didn't get to my current level of reading comprehension until I was 22. I think I would have been very discouraged if I would of been held back.
 
2014-01-27 02:47:51 PM

tjsands1118: First, good job Subby,

Second, being a psychologist on fark must be like being a mechanic in a junkyard, everywhere you look there is work to be done.

Third, I fully understand, I was terrible at reading when I was young, but excellent at math. I didn't actually progress in reading until late high school and probably didn't get to my current level of reading comprehension until I was 22. I think I would have been very discouraged if I would of been held back.


I was always good at reading and a math

A true triple threat
 
2014-01-27 02:53:28 PM

blackminded: Been awhile since we've done one of these, but BEHOLD THE POWER OF FARK!


So thanks to the Power of Fark someone wrote a short, unconvincing letter to the editor? Wow.
 
2014-01-27 02:57:06 PM
I was socially retained for third grade, even though I was way, way ahead of my "peers" academically.

I will never ever forgive my parents and the school system for doing that.
 
2014-01-27 03:18:37 PM

Aidan: Vangor: Being my entire background is gifted education, in particular program development,

*perks up*

Ooh! Where?! In... Florida...?

*brain strips a gear*


I understand the reaction. I am asked time and time again by family, friends, colleagues, and contacts why I remain in Florida, in particular my county, when I complain about our policies, support, facilities, etc.. Simple answer is the sheer enormity of the task means anywhere else would be easy by compare. Also, we have an extremely strong and capable if small gifted education field here. Thus, two significant reasons Florida is a good starting grounds for reforms.
 
2014-01-27 03:20:15 PM

aerojockey: I was socially retained for third grade, even though I was way, way ahead of my "peers" academically.

I will never ever forgive my parents and the school system for doing that.


That is just what they told you.
 
2014-01-27 03:21:54 PM

Kome: For starters, it would be wholly unethical to conduct a randomized experiment where we say "regardless of their performance, we'll hold these students back and promote those students just to examine in a more rigorous way the effects of being held back." Secondarily, causation can be established because the temporal dimension is very much accounted for in these observational studies, though it can be difficult to disentangle the variable of interest with confounding variables (i.e., holding the kid back versus extracurricular variables such as home life). Therefore, a cause-effect relationship can be established, though it is not a simple or straightforward claim that requires taking into consideration a lot of other contextual factors.


Your first reason amounts to "for ethical reasons, we can't do an actual controlled study, so we shouldn't be held to the same standards as actual science."

Your second reason goes to show just how bad the "science" behind these studies that claim to show causation are.  You say "the temporal dimension is very much accounted for"as if that's the only reason that you do controlled studies.  Being able to eliminate one cause of variation doesn't suddenly give you the same result as a controlled study.  You seem to acknowledge as much when you say "though it is not a simple or straightforward claim that requires taking into consideration a lot of other contextual factors." Yes, there are a lot of other contextual factors that have to be accounted for.  And these studies do not (and cannot) do that.  Hence, they cannot say if retention is the cause of the effects or not because there is no way to know if that's the cause or if it's being cause by the "other contextual factors" you're so willing to dismiss.

Others in the tread have already tried to address the topic of whether or not it could be ethical to do a controlled study.  The answer is "of course it could be."  We successfully test potentially dangerous drugs on children, while simultaneously withholding potentially life saving treatments from others based on random assignment.  Don't tell me you couldn't ethically do the same with education.  With consent from the a school and from parents you absolutely could do this ethically.  No ethical panel even pretends to require informed consent from children.  I'm not sure where people are digging that up from.

A sample from children's cancer studies:

Children are not able to give true informed consent, so they are asked for their assent to take part (or dissent from taking part) in a clinical trial. Before they can assent, the trial must be explained in age-appropriate language or using visual aids. In addition, parents or guardians are asked to give permission for their child to take part in a trial. . . .
 
2014-01-27 03:43:53 PM

Vangor: Aidan: Vangor: Being my entire background is gifted education, in particular program development,

*perks up*

Ooh! Where?! In... Florida...?

*brain strips a gear*

I understand the reaction. I am asked time and time again by family, friends, colleagues, and contacts why I remain in Florida, in particular my county, when I complain about our policies, support, facilities, etc.. Simple answer is the sheer enormity of the task means anywhere else would be easy by compare. Also, we have an extremely strong and capable if small gifted education field here. Thus, two significant reasons Florida is a good starting grounds for reforms.


No worries. I didn't disbelieve, I just needed time to recompute. :) Here in Michigan, there is no actual state-wide gifted program. There's money (not a lot as I recall), but no actual identification of gifted children, for a start, and no other recognized programs. So while I did have to pause for the Florida thing, the sheer population mass implied that you probably have better programs than we do. :)
 
2014-01-27 03:56:45 PM

Talondel: Your first reason amounts to "for ethical reasons, we can't do an actual controlled study, so we shouldn't be held to the same standards as actual science."


It's more like "the ethical concerns for this type of science are different in scope and scale to those of this other scientific field, and therefore the standards of one are not necessarily appropriate for the other." The same argument could be made in reverse. As a comparison, the canon of ethics for conducting appropriate geological research should not be the ones used for determining whether a given biological study should be conducted or treated like second-rate science or whatever. Also, frankly, there are ways to do "controlled" observational studies of this nature. It's called "matching."

Talondel: Your second reason goes to show just how bad the "science" behind these studies that claim to show causation are. You say "the temporal dimension is very much accounted for"as if that's the only reason that you do controlled studies. Being able to eliminate one cause of variation doesn't suddenly give you the same result as a controlled study. You seem to acknowledge as much when you say "though it is not a simple or straightforward claim that requires taking into consideration a lot of other contextual factors." Yes, there are a lot of other contextual factors that have to be accounted for. And these studies do not (and cannot) do that. Hence, they cannot say if retention is the cause of the effects or not because there is no way to know if that's the cause or if it's being cause by the "other contextual factors" you're so willing to dismiss.


So the science is bad because the topic is really difficult to study? Nice to know you think science should be so cut and dry, and easy. I am not, for what it's worth, saying the research in this area is perfect, by any means. There are always flaws and concerns, but the same is true of all scientific research, whether it's physics or psychology or computer science or anthropology. I also was not dismissing the other contextual variables, I just said that you don't necessarily need to conduct the perfect study in order to analyze the data you have and extrapolate from there interpretations that can be subsequently confirmed or refuted through continued investigation.

Talondel: Others in the tread have already tried to address the topic of whether or not it could be ethical to do a controlled study. The answer is "of course it could be." We successfully test potentially dangerous drugs on children, while simultaneously withholding potentially life saving treatments from others based on random assignment. Don't tell me you couldn't ethically do the same with education. With consent from the a school and from parents you absolutely could do this ethically. No ethical panel even pretends to require informed consent from children. I'm not sure where people are digging that up from.


Except in medical research, you are either randomly assigned to a treatment condition that both has theoretical promise and has (almost always) already been demonstrated in animal research to be a promising intervention for a given condition or a control condition where they get a sham treatment. You're comparing "this might be good" to "nothing". Contrast that to the discussion being had about educational policies. You'd be (or rather, some children would be, since we're all well outside the age of primary schoolers) randomly assigned to a condition where there is theoretical justification and observation of detriment for being in the experimental condition versus being in the control group. You're comparing "this might be bad" to "nothing."

Yes, in theory, that's one way to go about looking at some problems. In practice, the ethical concerns are radically different, first off, and secondly, just because that's one way to investigate a problem scientifically does not by any stretch of the imagination mean it's the only way to come to scientifically valid conclusions. I highly recommend reading up on research methods across disciplines.
 
2014-01-27 03:58:43 PM

Aidan: No worries. I didn't disbelieve, I just needed time to recompute. :) Here in Michigan, there is no actual state-wide gifted program.


I know. Michigan has an utterly basic definition, no mandate for identification, no mandate for programs, and no money required to be set aside for any such programs as well as lack of professional development requirements for teachers who manage services and programs for gifted and general lack of training for educational prepractitioners. Did a dual study for an undergraduate thesis in which I did analysis of definitions and policies across states. One advantage with lack of any department involvement is when a school gets behind gifted programs then such programs are allowed to be agile to research and resources whereas I am heavily constrained by identification criteria and funding which follows.
 
2014-01-27 04:13:06 PM

Talondel: Hence, they cannot say if retention is the cause of the effects or not because there is no way to know if that's the cause or if it's being cause by the "other contextual factors" you're so willing to dismiss.


Kome: Except in medical research, you are either randomly assigned to a treatment condition that both has theoretical promise and has (almost always) already been demonstrated in animal research to be a promising intervention for a given condition or a control condition where they get a sham treatment.


Uh... lack of intervention is not how one does a control. Rather, the current intervention is continued. For medical research, unless the intervention is novel then the previous intervention is used such as previous medicines. For education research, the standard course of intervention continues such as the retention of students who fail to meet this benchmark. Those are the controls in either study. Experimental groups would be whatever new intervention is being proposed. In any study, the fewer factors controlled for, the harder the causal link will be to make, assuming one wants to make a causal link in the first place.

However, this is not to say a causal link is impossible without all other factors controlled for. The important criteria is effect follows the intervention and other aspects of the study or intervention, such as sampling bias, are not the cause. This is why no one study is used to establish a position.
 
2014-01-27 05:03:16 PM
So these kids with dyslexia and other reading disorders get to move along and get called on to read in front of their friends at a higher grade and then die early from astronomical anxiety levels, all because abortion is socially unacceptable in South Dakota?
/I'm sorry.  I couldn't read the article and my mom is helping me type this.
 
2014-01-27 05:16:53 PM

blackminded: Been awhile since we've done one of these, but BEHOLD THE POWER OF FARK!


Suck it, Redditors!
 
2014-01-27 05:26:42 PM

2 grams: Ahhh Public Schools. One of The Obamacare of Education favorite targets of "fiscally responsible" conservatives. Wanna save a few bucks? Let's give the well to do a tax break and continue to defund schools


FTFY

I am beginning to favor the "when they are ready to learn something, then you teach it to them" method of education.
Would probably completely destroy the whole K-12 system, but it would allow those who are better qualified in one subject to work at that level.
Students would progress at their own pace though the curriculum.
 
2014-01-27 05:38:13 PM

Kome: Also, frankly, there are ways to do "controlled" observational studies of this nature. It's called "matching."


"Matching" is not the same as a controlled trial. Matching only controls for measured confounders, and there are more sophisticated methods (e.g. regression analysis) for controlling for measured confounders that don't run into empty cell limitations when trying to adjust for multiple factors, and are quite easy to implement using modern software packages.

I'd like to keep this separate from any other disagreements we've had in this thread. Please let me know if you have any questions about this particular subject. I'm a professional statistician - I can bore you for hours.
 
2014-01-27 06:03:23 PM

Kome: It's more like "the ethical concerns for this type of science are different in scope and scale to those of this other scientific field, and therefore the standards of one are not necessarily appropriate for the other." The same argument could be made in reverse. As a comparison, the canon of ethics for conducting appropriate geological research should not be the ones used for determining whether a given biological study should be conducted or treated like second-rate science or whatever.


I said they should do a controlled study, not cite correlations and call them causation.  You then claimed it would be "wholly unethical" to do a controlled study.  I pointed out that controlled studies of children are done all the time in far more sensitive environments.  You then made an argument about the ethics of geology, for no apparent reason.  No one is trying to compare doing this type of study to geology.  I'm comparing it to other studies of children.  You said it would be unethical.  Based on the ethical rules from other fields of study on children (not rocks) it would not be unethical.  You made a false assertion.  Just admit it and move on.  It would not be unethical to do this kind of study.  As a matter of fact, controlled random studies of school children are done ALL THE TIME to test new curricula, disciplinary measures, and even things like the effect of remedial reading programs.  (google it yourself)

Also, frankly, there are ways to do "controlled" observational studies of this nature. It's called "matching."

First of all, matching is not a substitute for randomized controls.  It's a second best option when you can't get a random sample.  See generally, here.  You may also note that randomized controls in educational settings are both common and desirable, which further undermines any claim that they would be unethical. Second, if your statement were accurate (which it isn't), do you realize it would be an admission that we could do controlled studies of this topic, but have not?  In other words, you're trying (but failing) to admit that we could do controlled studies on this topic, contrary to what you've been arguing.

Kome: Yes, in theory, that's one way to go about looking at some problems. In practice, the ethical concerns are radically different, first off, and secondly, just because that's one way to investigate a problem scientifically does not by any stretch of the imagination mean it's the only way to come to scientifically valid conclusions. I highly recommend reading up on research methods across disciplines.


Yes, the ethical concerns in CANCER RESEARCH are far GREATER than in an educational setting.  You're withholding potentially life saving treatments based on random assignment.  In this hypothetical study we're talking about flunking second grade.  Why don't you spend some time considering which has more serious ethical consequences and then get back to me.  To argue that you can't use randomized trials in an educational or with school children is both demonstrably false (in that it is done routinely) and completely lacking in common sense.

As to your last line, at least one of the two people in this conversation has actually published peer reviewed psychology studies on children.  (hint: It's me).  I think I know just slightly more than you do about the research methods used, especially considering the relatively ignorant comments you've made on the topic thus far.

To sum up your mistakes: 1) It would certainly be ethical to do this as a controlled study. 2) It would be entirely feasible to do this as a controlled study. 3) You can't turn correlation into causation by doing lots more correlating.  4) Matching is not a substitute for random controls, because studies done using matching can't control for variation between the groups because they're (by definition) not randomly assigned.  5)  You're correct that at least one person in this discussion is woefully uninformed about "research methods across disciplines"but you are wrong about who it is. (hint: It's you.)
 
2014-01-27 06:13:11 PM
Probably the best thing a school can do is to involve the parents in reading with the kids as much as possible. Maybe come up with good instructions to help the parents read with their children effectively.

Much easier said than done, but if a kid needs intensive 1 on 1 help the parents are a good place to start. Also if the parents show a child that this is important with their actions then they will think its important too.

As for the school, maybe a reading focused summer program to bring them up to the level they need to be at as a first option instead of holding them back a whole year?

/Read with your kids every day until they are really good at it.  Worked for our family anyway.
 
2014-01-27 06:15:08 PM

Kome: Talondel: Others in the tread have already tried to address the topic of whether or not it could be ethical to do a controlled study. The answer is "of course it could be." We successfully test potentially dangerous drugs on children, while simultaneously withholding potentially life saving treatments from others based on random assignment. Don't tell me you couldn't ethically do the same with education. With consent from the a school and from parents you absolutely could do this ethically. No ethical panel even pretends to require informed consent from children. I'm not sure where people are digging that up from.

Except in medical research, you are either randomly assigned to a treatment condition that both has theoretical promise and has (almost always) already been demonstrated in animal research to be a promising intervention for a given condition or a control condition where they get a sham treatment. You're comparing "this might be good" to "nothing". Contrast that to the discussion being had about educational policies. You'd be (or rather, some children would be, since we're all well outside the age of primary schoolers) randomly assigned to a condition where there is theoretical justification and observation of detriment for being in the experimental condition versus being in the control group. You're comparing "this might be bad" to "nothing."


It is entirely possible (and frequently done) to compare two practices currently in use using a clinical trial. You don't have to compare "something" to "nothing". It's called 'comparative effectiveness research', it's perfectly good science, and it's very informative.

In a similar manner, you would randomize students who are flunking reading and meet certain other criteria (parental consent, specific identification of 'flunking', and/or belonging to a specific group (e.g. ESL) if that's the question of interest) to two treatment arms: promoted and retained. Despite your objections, this is perfectly ethical and, as I pointed out earlier, this sort of student treatment (randomized via lottery) is already being done.

The rest of this post can be skipped if you simply agree that it is appropriate (indeed incredibly valuable) to conduct scientific research on comparative effectiveness of educational strategies on children using a randomized control trial. Your objections seem to have started in a specious ethical argument, which you then over-extended (no-one proposed anything similar to abandoning children to raise themselves in the wild). Feel free to back off from that position.


Me (in response to your claim that it's unethical to do a randomized trial of children because they cannot give consent): I urge you to check out this NIH page on the subject of inclusion of children.

Kome:  Those issues are not relevant for figuring out what happens when school policies change. Now we're not even talking about the difference between medical science and non-medical science, we're talking about the difference between scientific investigation and public policy decisions. That's not even the same sport, much less the same ballpark.

I think you lost the thread there. How does the fact that scientific investigation =/= public policy relate to whether children can be part of clinical experiments?

Kome: Talk about a strawman. My first-hand experience with experimental design is not the issue (but, being a published scientist in neuroscience, cognitive science, and social science, I do want to politely tell you to f*ck off for even thinking it appropriate to attack my position in such a manner).

How on earth did you deal with the reviewer's comments of your published papers, if you can't handle my mild and fact-based criticism of your methodology? Or did your co-authors respond to the reviewers for you?

And, hell, between the two of us, you're the one who has trouble identifying the comparison groups in the studies that have been performed because by your own admission you didn't even read the source material that has been linked in this thread, nor have you read the studies that those policy briefs (read: not studies, but summaries) were abstracted from.

I looked through the entire first document (of four linked documents). The authors did not identify the comparison group. This is bad policy and it's bad science. Feel free to prove me an idiot by finding the comparison group in that first document.

I gave up looking at that point. Life's too short to read that much poor writing. It was very nice of odinsposse: to find an identification of a comparison group in the third document. I will happily continue my discussion with them about it - the fact that the first document was poorly written does not a priori mean that the position it advocated is wrong.

Your suspicions as to why those experiments are not being carried out do not even rise to the level of simply being wrong. School policies are not scientific experiments to be conducted.

They are policies put in place, primarily by politicians and not scientists, from which interested researchers can subsequently examine and analyze.



School policies are not scientific research, but (I'm hoping) the one thing we agree on is that they should be based on facts and scientific research. Where we appear to disagree (rather violently in your case) is whether randomized trials are a valid source of information for public policy.
 
2014-01-27 06:22:53 PM

Talondel: As to your last line, at least one of the two people in this conversation has actually published peer reviewed psychology studies on children. (hint: It's me). I think I know just slightly more than you do about the research methods used, especially considering the relatively ignorant comments you've made on the topic thus far.


I'm very glad you're posting in this thread. I've been really hoping that Komeis not representative of the state of educational research.
 
2014-01-27 08:23:36 PM
Subby,

I agree, 2nd grade is a bit premature to make that determination...but at what time should they have to know how to read and write at age level?  Middle-school?  High school?
 
2014-01-27 08:43:29 PM
If my kid couldn't read, I'd be fighting to have him held back.  If you can't read, you can't gain any useful knowledge in any other reading based classes - science, social studies, grammar, etc.  Nor is it fair to his classmates to have him weighing down the group.

fark the socialization aspect.  He can make friends in his new class.  Or not, but he'll learn to read or he'll stay back again.
 
2014-01-27 09:01:41 PM

slayer199: Subby,

I agree, 2nd grade is a bit premature to make that determination...but at what time should they have to know how to read and write at age level?  Middle-school?  High school?


This is an odd question because "at age level" would suggest either an average ability to read and write or a generally accepted ability to read or write when not impaired due to certain disabilities or otherwise disrupted due to new language of majority. Of course, this brings into several concerns about parental involvement, print deficient environments, lack of enrichment opportunities, poor educational opportunities, and so forth. Being I work with gifted, I tend to bristle with our attention to "at age level" because we spend such an enormity of time to make decisions to account for factors before providing intervention our students fail in the interim and our resources are towards proving rather than fulfilling the need.

I understand what you mean, and I recognize what I said was rather tangential, simply we have to disenthrall ourselves of some of the concepts which have allowed our education system to stagnate such as, as were mentioned, this focus on age, grades, grade levels, pass or fail, etc..
 
2014-01-27 09:55:01 PM
I volunteer in my second-grade son's class two days a week. There are two children who are woefully behind on reading standards, primarily because they are not reading at home. A small book goes home every night that they are to read to their parents and the parent signs off. It literally takes five minutes yet almost never happens.

Our solution has been that I take those two into independent study during language arts, since they aren't where they need to be to understand those lessons, and we read. We got through five books today, and they both passed their computerized comprehension tests on them. That is what it takes to get these kids ready for third grade: another parent stepping up to the plate to do what you won't or can't.

Kids who are behind should get to promote to the next grade, as subby suggests, but go to a special reading session to get direct help every day. I believe that would generally yield better results.
 
2014-01-27 10:09:41 PM

Moonfisher: Kids who are behind should get to promote to the next grade, as subby suggests, but go to a special reading session to get direct help every day. I believe that would generally yield better results.


Now to begin I thank you for your assistance because I know how beneficial parents are in classrooms; simply another pair of eyes and ears or an amount of human feedback is monumental in classrooms with huge disparity of ability, motivation, etc.. However, one major issue is these remediation sessions tend to be in place of other instruction. Targeted intervention, smaller groups, etc., are worthwhile, but these are often at the cost of what else the student is expected to learn. Further, this is often the result of another instructional position outside of the classroom, which demands additional transitional periods either for the instructor to arrive to the classroom or students to arrive to the instructor, reducing overall time spent with instruction even if for more valuable instruction. In a mastery based system, as has been discussed in this thread, this would be an excellent addition, as would a system where additional interventions and programs and events did not get thrown on to the standard school day. Those are all aspects of reforms to the fundamental concept of our schools where, in this instance, students do not simply repeat material but get new intervention on specific material.
 
2014-01-27 10:26:43 PM

Vangor: This is an odd question because "at age level" would suggest either an average ability to read and write or a generally accepted ability to read or write when not impaired due to certain disabilities or otherwise disrupted due to new language of majority. Of course, this brings into several concerns about parental involvement, print deficient environments, lack of enrichment opportunities, poor educational opportunities, and so forth. Being I work with gifted, I tend to bristle with our attention to "at age level" because we spend such an enormity of time to make decisions to account for factors before providing intervention our students fail in the interim and our resources are towards proving rather than fulfilling the need.

I understand what you mean, and I recognize what I said was rather tangential, simply we have to disenthrall ourselves of some of the concepts which have allowed our education system to stagnate such as, as were mentioned, this focus on age, grades, grade levels, pass or fail, etc..


There's a couple reasons I asked the question.  First, I believe reading (comprehension) and writing are the 2 most important skills a student should learn.  Almost everything is based off those 2 skills (other than math...which I don't get at all :)  )

Second, is from personal experience with my son.  I think the concept of making it a law is ridiculous because it doesn't address the WHY a child may not be reading up to snuff.  My son struggled in school starting around 3rd grade...falling behind and having difficulty completing his homework as the workload increased....and we couldn't figure out why.  I think it was 5th grade when the school called me down to discuss one of the standardized test results.  They basically said he was a special needs child (which I thought was ridiculous because the kid had a good vocabulary and could speak intelligently).  I thought he may be dyslexic.  I had him evaluated by a child psychologist and the results were enlightening.  It wasn't that he was slow, it was that he was a very slow reader...he never finished any of the tests.  Essentially he was reading at half the speed of other kids (we had his eyes checked as well...no glasses needed).  Needless to say, I wasn't happy with the school for not identifying the problem and I wasn't happy with myself for not seeing it earlier.  Once we knew what the problem was we worked to improve his reading speed (we used something called EyeQ) which made a dramatic improvement in his reading speed, comprehension, and ability to complete his coursework.  He had summer school (which was mostly online) and was able to get caught up relatively quickly without being held back.  He wasn't never an A student...but he was able to graduate high school with a 2.6 average (and now he's in the U.S. Navy).

At some point we have to make sure a kid can read and write and not shove them along.  I don't know what point that is...I certainly don't think we should graduate a kid from high school if they can't read and write.  If it means they need extra help then they get extra help....but a line needs to be drawn somewhere to ensure they will have the communication skills they'll need for life.  The schools need to do a better job of finding the issue before it becomes a problem that can't be easily remedied.  In our case, we were fortunate we found out well ahead of high school and were able to do the extra work necessary (including summer school) to get him up to speed.
 
2014-01-27 10:43:26 PM

Vangor: Moonfisher: Kids who are behind should get to promote to the next grade, as subby suggests, but go to a special reading session to get direct help every day. I believe that would generally yield better results.

Now to begin I thank you for your assistance because I know how beneficial parents are in classrooms; simply another pair of eyes and ears or an amount of human feedback is monumental in classrooms with huge disparity of ability, motivation, etc.. However, one major issue is these remediation sessions tend to be in place of other instruction. Targeted intervention, smaller groups, etc., are worthwhile, but these are often at the cost of what else the student is expected to learn. Further, this is often the result of another instructional position outside of the classroom, which demands additional transitional periods either for the instructor to arrive to the classroom or students to arrive to the instructor, reducing overall time spent with instruction even if for more valuable instruction. In a mastery based system, as has been discussed in this thread, this would be an excellent addition, as would a system where additional interventions and programs and events did not get thrown on to the standard school day. Those are all aspects of reforms to the fundamental concept of our schools where, in this instance, students do not simply repeat material but get new intervention on specific material.


You are absolutely correct. While I help these children in a small group during class reading time, that ends of dribbling over into language arts and art. It would be great if curriculum could be built to better meet the needs of each child rather than the uniform standard being the starting point, but that would take major changes that would really twist a lot of panties. Just look at the "end is nigh" reactions to common core.
 
2014-01-27 10:58:28 PM

slayer199: There's a couple reasons I asked the question.


Sorry, I think you missed the point of my diatribe which was not my disagreement with you but the misdirected efforts in the education system to justify rather than fulfill needs. Notice, anyone worth a damn would be able to recognize what the issue was with your son. I am able to name eight students I work with out of ninety who have similar problems; there are no learning disabilities, no dyslexia, no sight problems, etc., but these students read quite slowly, some due to processing getting in the way of gathering, others due to perfectionism, and still more because previous years of teaching dictate purposeful slowing of reading speed. None of them will be given additional time on state or district assessments, but if I wanted to the process would be too late to start now to get them identified before the standardized end of year exam. All too likely my time would be wasted because there would be new gathering of data in the coming year.

In some locations, this means not telling parents until interventions are approved by meeting teams, especially when there are possible medical concerns as learning disabilities or dyslexia would be. Despite the enormous amount of leeway I have, I am not allowed to tell a parent, for instance, to get a child tested for attention deficit disorder, nor am I allowed to tell a parent my belief as to whether are not the child has such a disorder or whether an intervention should work for them. This may seem small, but when we are talking about my fellow teachers needing to get individual curricular interventions for students approved or face action from administration should the lesson plans be unapproved or ignoring of interventions which need prior approval... You see where this heads.

More the point of all of this, what happened to your son is atrocious, but we have disempowered our educators and focused on the wrong idea: what is average appropriate rather than individual appropriate. My students do not need to know only the information which is average for the date of manufacture anymore than a child with severe learning disabilities should be expected to read at a rate and with comprehension consistent with individuals his or her chronological age.
 
2014-01-27 11:16:41 PM

Vangor: Sorry, I think you missed the point of my diatribe which was not my disagreement with you but the misdirected efforts in the education system to justify rather than fulfill needs. Notice, anyone worth a damn would be able to recognize what the issue was with your son. I am able to name eight students I work with out of ninety who have similar problems; there are no learning disabilities, no dyslexia, no sight problems, etc., but these students read quite slowly, some due to processing getting in the way of gathering, others due to perfectionism, and still more because previous years of teaching dictate purposeful slowing of reading speed. None of them will be given additional time on state or district assessments, but if I wanted to the process would be too late to start now to get them identified before the standardized end of year exam. All too likely my time would be wasted because there would be new gathering of data in the coming year.

In some locations, this means not telling parents until interventions are approved by meeting teams, especially when there are possible medical concerns as learning disabilities or dyslexia would be. Despite the enormous amount of leeway I have, I am not allowed to tell a parent, for instance, to get a child tested for attention deficit disorder, nor am I allowed to tell a parent my belief as to whether are not the child has such a disorder or whether an intervention should work for them. This may seem small, but when we are talking about my fellow teachers needing to get individual curricular interventions for students approved or face action from administration should the lesson plans be unapproved or ignoring of interventions which need prior approval... You see where this heads.

More the point of all of this, what happened to your son is atrocious, but we have disempowered our educators and focused on the wrong idea: what is average appropriate rather than individual appropriate. My students do not need to know only the ...


Heh, I think you misunderstood me.  I'm in agreement with you...the only point where we may differ is where I said I don't believe a kid should graduate high school without knowing how to read and write.   A parent SHOULD be made fully aware if their child is having issues learning before they hit high school.

The circumstance with my son is even more complex because he lived with his mother in one of the worst school districts in the state (though I did send him to parochial school) the first 9 years of his life to one of the best when I asked for an received custody.  I initially assumed that his problem was actually having more homework or that he was being lazy, not that he was having a problem reading.  Then I thought he may have ADHD or dyslexia (negative for both). Imagine how bad I felt knowing that he had an actual problem...and blaming myself for not seeing it earlier.  The school(s) failed my son but fortunately, it was caught and we had time to get it together.
 
Displayed 50 of 154 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report