OCR Text |
Show Know Your Schools . . . . Reading And Failure In First Grade .... A great deal of concern is expressed ex-pressed by parents of children who fail to learn to read in the first grade. The failure of children to learn to read was a major topic top-ic of discussion in many of the discussion groups at the recent Rural Education Conference. The tradition that children must learn to read in the first grade has been a long and strong one in American families and educational educa-tional circles. Consequently, the idea that children may be promoted promot-ed without having met the usual standards for that level has been, for a number of years, a major controversial issue. As late as 1926 a study showed that 99 per cent of children who were not promoted from the first grade and 90 per cent of children not promoted from the second grade were judged "failures" in reading. However, in spite of the importance import-ance which was attached to learning learn-ing to read as a standard for promotion, pro-motion, school people became increasingly in-creasingly doubtful of the advantages advan-tages of non-promotion and more and more aware of the dangers of "failure." Caswell, Saunders, and Elsbee, in important studies in this re- gard, showed conclusively that children who are "failed" do not make as much academic progress as they would have made, if they had been regularly promoted with their own peer group. Other studies stud-ies have chown the unfortunate effects of failure in school on children's adjustments to school and to themselves. The evidence piles up, accordingly, that children chil-dren should not be failed in the first grade because they have not learned to read at primer or some other fixed level. Many school systems such as ours have accepted the facts thoroughly established by research and have adopted a "no failure" policy in the first grade and in most other grades. It is not enough, however, to set up such a policy without taking further steps to meet the needs of children chil-dren (and of teachers) who have a wider range in reading ability at any one grade level than ever before. As Hildreth pointed out, "If continuous promotion is considered con-sidered to be desirable for a large proportion of school children, then something must be done at all levels of the school in pro-(Continued pro-(Continued on Back Pafie) DANIEL F. MITCHELL .... (Continued from Page 1) held the office of a high priest. Managed Creamery For sixteen years Mr. Mitchell managed the Western Creamery Co. in Roosevelt, where he and his family lived until 1949 when he moved to Neola. While a resident res-ident of Roosevelt he took an active ac-tive part in politics and served three terms in the State Legislature, Legisla-ture, 1933 to 1937. For eight years he was foreman for the State Road Commisison in the Roosevelt area, and was a city councilman for 10 years. While serving as a member of the Legislature, Mr. Mitchell was appointed by the late Governor Henry Blood to serve as a member mem-ber of a committee to select a new prison site. They responded and selected the site where the prison is now located at the Point of the Mountain. Survivors Listed Survivors include his widow, four daughters, Mrs. Lazell (Amanda) (Aman-da) Henrie, Mrs. Eldon (Lois) Duncan, Dun-can, Mrs. Leland (Rhae) Peterson, Mrs. Wesley (Fern) Allred, all of Neola; 14 grandchildren; eight great-grandchildren; five brothers, one sister: Marvin" and Glenn, Salt Lake City; Dennis J. and William D., Neola; Arzy H., Duchesne, and Mrs. Myrtle Elmer, Neola. Friends may call at the Olpin Mortuary in Rosevelt Thursday afternoon and evening and at the family home in Neola from 9 a.m. Friday until time of the funeral Burial will be in the Roosevelt City Cemetery. |