SEA No. 1 Part 1: Retention
This first episode of the Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 1 series will cover Section 17. A section that is important for parents, teachers, and administrators to understand. It addresses the new requirement that second-grade students take the IREAD assessment, the retention of third-grade students who do not pass the IREAD assessment, and the assessment results required from schools.
Senate Enrolled Act No. 1 was passed by the house on March 7, 2024, passed by the Senate on March 8, 2024, and signed by the governor on March 11, 2024. You can access the entire bill by clicking on the link provided in this blog post, along with the voting records from both the House and Senate.
Let’s start at the beginning of Section 17. Subsection A states that beginning in the 2024-2025 school year, any third-grade student who has not achieved a passing score on IREAD after the summer administration will be retained unless they meet one of the following exceptions: (These can be found in sub-section c.)
· They have already been retained in third grade.
· The student has an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that specifies that retention is not appropriate, and the case conference committee has determined that promotion to another grade is appropriate.
The case conference committee comprises parents, teachers, and administrators. This committee has always had the ability to give a student with an IEP a Good Cause Exemption (GCE). This exempts the student with an IEP from having to retake the IREAD assessment and from facing penalties for not passing it.
It is my professional opinion that making a student with a learning disability, especially in reading, re-take IREAD has no benefit for the student or educating staff.
· The student is an English language learner who has received services for fewer than two years and a committee consisting of: parents, administrators, and educators determine that promotion is appropriate based on the instructional practices outlined in the student’s Individual Learning Plan (ILP).
This is a Good Cause Exemption (GCE) provided to a student whose first language is not English and is receiving additional instruction in acquiring English under an Individual Learning Plan (ILP).
I would like to point out that research shows it takes 7 years for a student to become fluent in English. This legislation requires English learners to be retained after only 2 years of English instruction if they do not pass IREAD.
· The student received a score of proficient or above proficient in grade 3 math on the statewide summative assessment, ILEARN.
You might think this is bizarre. Why would passing a math test exempt you from the requirements of passing a reading test? I believe this exemption is based on the thinking that if the student is performing at grade level in one of the core academic areas, they should not be held back.
This highlights the absurdity of retaining a student based on one test score. No educational professional determines to retain a student based off one test score. We take multiple data points into consideration, along with our knowledge of the student and how retention will affect them.
· The student:
Has received intensive intervention as determined by the department in reading for two or more years, and
Was retained more than one time throughout kindergarten, grade 1, or grade 2.
I am going to pause and take a moment to give my thoughts on this section as an educator. I would also like to point you the data that informs my decision. So, let’s start there. Visible Learning is a collection of years' worth of educational research that ranks the effectiveness of instructional strategies. You can find two articles covering these ratings with the links in this blog post.
Below is an image that shows the rating scale and where a few of the instructional practices rank. We want to use instructional practices in the blue or Zone of Desired Effects, as these have the highest positive impact on student learning.
As you can see, the red section lists retention under Reverse Effects. Meaning retention has a negative impact on student learning. In my years of experience, I have found that retention can have a positive impact when done in kindergarten or first grade; beyond that, the negatives outweigh the positives.
If research shows that retention has a reverse effect on student learning, why are we putting legislation in that requires schools to retain students in third grade? Furthermore, why are we making a retention decision based on one test score? I would also ask, who knows what’s best for a student’s educational needs, their parents and teachers or legislators?
I do want to point out that Section 18 allows for a parent of a student who has been retained in grade 3 to the right to appeal the student’s retention if the parent believes the student meets an exception under section 2(c). Section 2 (c) refers to the exemption given to a student who has an intellectual disability or IEP (Individual Education Plan).
If I am reading this correctly, a parent still does not have much say or power to keep their child from being retained if they do not qualify for a GCE (Good Cause Exemption). As an educator and administrator, I have always said the parent has the last say whether it is in agreement with what I or the committee feels is best for the student’s educational success or not. This legislation removes the parents' right and ability to overturn the retention along with tying the hands of educators who do not think retention will benefit a student.
Section 17 also requires students in second grade to take the IREAD assessment. In addition, students must continue to take the IREAD assessment until:
· They receive a passing score regardless of the student’s grade level, or
· they are in 7th grade.
Schools are to report the following data to parents and use this data to inform their instruction:
· Phonemic Awareness
· Phonics
· Fluency
· Vocabulary
· Comprehension
This is acceptable, however, let me show the data given to schools from the IREAD assessment versus the data from the DIBELS assessment, which assesses all 5 components of reading.
The first image is the report given for a third grader who passed IREAD.
This second image is the report given for a third grader who did not pass IREAD.
The performance levels are the same even though their scores were vastly different. The other issue is that it does not definitively state what reading skills they need to work on. It doesn’t even break the category performance down enough to tell parents and educators if their child met the benchmark or was near the benchmark. This data is not specific or actionable for creating instruction specific to a child’s reading needs.
According to SEA 1 schools are to report how students perform in each of the five components of reading: Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension. However, IREAD does not assess each of these components. It covers comprehension well and briefly touches on phonemic awareness and vocabulary.
Below is a statement from the DOE in response to educators who questioned the data they received from student’s IREAD results. I will say the DOE has been great in responding and providing support where they can.
IREAD-3 reporting category scores were updated in 2024 to reflect performance levels rather than percent correct. Overall proficiency scores for IREAD-3 have not changed. The updated reporting structure considers the number of items a student answers correctly and the item characteristics (the knowledge and skills required by the item). The score report is generated using information from the student assessment that can confirm if the student is At/Near, Below, or Above the required content for each domain. The cut scores used to calculate and determine the reporting category groupings are aligned to the cut scores on the assessment.
Grade 3 has only two overall performance levels: “Pass” and “Did Not Pass.” These are operationalized into three groupings on the reporting categories: Below, At/Near, and Above where At/Near and Above levels correspond more closely to the “Pass” category. Grade 2 has three overall performance levels: “At Risk”, “On Track”, and “Pass” where “On Track” reflects expected student ability at grade 2 and “Pass” reflects the achievement expected at grade 3.
Due to the small number and foundational nature of items in the Reading: Foundations and Vocabulary segment of IREAD-3, most students will fall into either Below or At/Near proficiency for this domain at grade 3. The item characteristics are foundational and therefore do not lend themselves to demonstration of ability above the “Pass” requirement. Students who perform well overall will often see At/Near the standard reflected on this reporting category, and this is accurate as they have demonstrated proficiency for this foundational domain.
Below is a picture of the data that is provided through the DIBELS assessment. It provides data in each of the five reading categories and informs both teachers and parents whether their child is performing well below, below, at, or above the grade level expectation, in each category.
I will provide a deep dive into what each of these data points mean and how they can inform instruction in a later episode. For this episode, I want to point out how, even just looking at the snapshot of data, both parents and educators have a better understanding of what reading skills a child needs when compared to IREAD data.
The state has for years provided funding, through the Formative Assessment Grant, for schools to purchase and use the DIBELS assessments. My question is, if we already have an assessment that is far superior to the state assessment, why are we not using it?
The act provides for the literacy intervention of all students who do not pass IREAD. This is a great way to ensure no child falls through the cracks. I believe that any competent school or educator is already engaging in this activity, as evaluating students' comprehension, and adapting instruction is a regular task for teachers.
My Suggestions:
1. Use an assessment like DIBELS that gives both parents and educators more actionable data for instruction and intervention.
2. Remove the requirement of second graders taking a third grade reading assessment, as an assessment like DIBELS is far more informative and less intensive.
3. Remove the retention requirement because our children are not one test score. It should be the educators and parents who look at all aspects of the child and multiple data points that determine whether retention is the best course of action.
4. Provide funding for meeting the educational needs of students through interventions.
5. The perfect plan would be to remove IREAD and use DIBELS in grades K-8.
This is my break down of section 17 of SEA No. 1 accompanied with my opinions from an educator’s viewpoint. There are links to the actual document so you can read through the act and reach out to your state representatives with your concerns. Nothing will change unless we make law makers aware of what really needs to happen in our schools.
I highly encourage parents, educators, and administrators to reach out to your state representatives and ask why they voted for it and share your thoughts.
You can use the link in this blog post to find your representatives and contact them. I believe this bill had good intentions, but without input from educators and parents, it is fundamentally flawed. Let’s come to the table and create a plan together that leads to a better education and future for our children.
