The LEARN Act will require assessment of newborn children?

And their literacy skills?

I really have some doubts about this. Demanding evaluation of babies in an educational way seems a little invasive.

From the Schools Matters blog:

I'm not making this up



More about the bill being proposed:

A bill to establish a comprehensive literacy program.



Summary:



I believe in education, literacy, giving children opportunity.

But somewhere in my old-fashioned mind (and just old also) there is the belief that parents have the first and foremost responsibility for their children when they are babies.

I really do want to learn more about this bill.

this might be good.

in babies. The earlier problems in these areas are identified, the better.

If, however, the money goes to hearing and vision tests, I don't have a problem with that.

"early language and literacy skills."

Not sure why people seem to be tuning out the early language aspect here. It's not just about literacy.

of thing they mean.

I'd say that it'd be testing for delayed language development during check-ups and funding for early childhood stuff. 0-6 is the "early childhood bracket," so this just sounds like a way to funnel money into early childhood education.

might apply for a grant to make early childhood assessment available! And if early childhood assessment were available, some parents might have their children assessed! Then it's even possible that some children would be identified as having linguistic developmental problems! And some of those children could end up getting help from appropriate professionals!

Obviously, it's a downhill death spiral from there ...

You're focusing on the 'literacy' angle but they not giving newborns literacy tests for crying out loud. Their words are "appropriate early language and literacy skills".

"(C) SCREENING ASSESSMENTS AND MEASURES- Acquiring, providing training for, and implementing screening assessments or other appropriate measures to determine whether children from birth through kindergarten entry are developing appropriate early language and literacy skills."

I 100% support that, and feel it should be mandatory.

As a parent of a child with a speech delay I can tell you that I had to go out of my way to press the system intially to get them involved. I knew from an early age that he wasn't proceeding normally as far as language. He was 18 months old and not even saying mommy and daddy. In fact the idea of speech delay didn't even occur to me, I thought he might be autistic. The system, our parents, doctors etc all sort of brushed it of till the year and a half mark, after I'd been saying that something was not right with him for over 6 months. We finally got him evaluated and his receptive and expressive language skills were in the cellar (everything else was great, top marks). Now he's 3 and after a year and a half of speech therapy and other tests and head start programs he's still 'behind' but he's really catching up and it's done wonders for him.

What about kids that don't have paranoid parents, or people who just brush it off? They get to school and have tremendous difficulty and their language is far behind.

Now yes, I was responsible for my child, took the initiative and got him help. But why should other children have lifelong problems because THEIR parent is irresponsible? It's the same reason I support sChip as a standard of health care for children under the age of 18. No child should have to pay for health care in this country in any way shape or form.

Assessing newborns for basic physical problems which can be corrected early, and then testing along the way for other types of delays or problems which can be helped by early education and therapy should be standard. There's no reason that children should be punished because of parents ignorance or poverty level, imho.

Now I haven't read the bill, so I don't know what the specific details in this one are, but just deriding it by making it seem like they want to give newborn babies 'literacy' tests, is not what this bill is about and makes it seem clownish, which it's not.

Nothing wrong with providing GUIDANCE and INFORMATION to new parents. Most people are woefully ignorant about child-rearing and proceed by trail and error as much as anything. If a little assesment can catch problems earlier, and offer direction as to treatment, the next generation will be that much better off. Early childhood years are crucial to mental development, and waiting until first grade may mean getting a very late start on treatment of disabilities, as well as development of basic learning skills. The obvious extreme cases -- children whose hearing disabilities were not diagnosed until later in life, and who were treated as mentally disabled for years -- should be a stark warning to all.

I have always been shocked to hear how many people in my own generation did not receive any instruction in reading -- no attempt to learn how to read at all -- until they entered first grade. Their parents didn't believe that anyone but a schoolteacher could teach them to read, so they didn't try to do it themselves. In grade school, I was astounded to see kids my own age stumbling over simple, three- and four-letter words and reading in slow, halting voices while I was already able to read out loud as fast as I could talk, and reading complete books on my own. My parents had read to me as soon as I showed signs I was listening, and taught me to read by letting me follow along as they read aloud. I just thought that was normal, and was saddened to learn how many people miss out on the opportunity to develop their minds as fully because their parents didn't bother to spend a few hours reading to them. Worse yet to realize that many parents don't know how much they are handicapping their own children because of mistaken notions about "needing to wait" to learn to read.