Many years ago — before school records were maintained electronically — I was documenting my third grade students’ year for their academic files. I observed a correlation between a student’s academic performance in my class and her/his previous attendance.

I found that my students who missed between 10 and 15 days of school a year in K-2 were struggling in reading and mathematics in third grade, even when their attendance significantly improved in third grade. Students who missed only four or five days a year in the previous grades were significantly more likely to be proficient in reading and mathematics. I took note of the correlation because, prior to this observation, I could not account for the discrepancy in performance between these two groups of students — they were similarly engaged and attending in my classroom. (It should be noted that the struggling students who had high absences in K-2 were not considered chronically absent, which is 10% of a school year, or more than 17 days.)

Why am I reflecting on this observation now? Because, in my classrooms, school attendance today is far worse than it was back then — and because the Utah Legislature passed SB241 this past session with a cost of $16 million that ignores this critical component of learning.

All those years ago, fewer than 25% of my students would miss 10 to 15 days a year, and occasionally a student would miss more than 17 days a year. This past year, in my second grade class, fewer than 25% of my students missed less than 10 days and more than 20% were considered chronically absent, and not by slim margins. That does not account for students arriving late or checking out early (usually more than an hour). Those occurrences have also significantly increased.

Although it is titled “Early Literacy,” my experience leads me to believe that SB241 will have a negative effect on student literacy for a couple of other reasons not related to student attendance.

I taught third grade for many years, then transferred to upper elementary grades for several years. When I returned to third grade, I witnessed an overall decline in reading comprehension and writing compared with my previous classes, although decoding and fluency skills had improved. I suspect this change is a result of the assessments that are used and the weight that is given to those assessments.

The change occurred as DIBELS scores received increased importance. (Educators in schools tend to use the terms DIBELS and Acadience Reading interchangeably. Acadience Reading is DIBELS Next, an early edition of DIBELS.)

Although comprehension and writing skills are part of the standards for K-2 students, comprehension is minimally measured through DIBELS, and it does not assess writing. The RISE assessment that third graders take does measure comprehension, but does not currently measure writing. DIBELS was developed to be used as a screener, not a summative assessment but, as teachers have returned to school this year, we have been informed that Acadience Reading will be the assessment used to comply with SB241.

Another reason I am wary of SB241 is that it ignores some critical research. Educators try to improve educational outcomes using best practices. One of the best places to find such practices is through John Hattie’s meta-analyses, where he provides effect sizes for factors that impact student learning. An effect size of 0 says that the factor has no effect, a positive effect size of 0.4 is considered a year’s worth of growth, so best practices are those with effect sizes higher than +0.4. According to Hattie, retention (holding a student back a grade), required by SB241 for third graders who are not proficient in reading, has a negative effect size of 0.32.

That means that retention actually decreases learning and academic performance.

A better way to improve early literacy would be to invest in collective teacher efficacy, which has the highest effect size (+1.57) of any factor studied by Hattie.

There are some good components of the early literacy bill. It calls for teacher training in and the use of the science of reading, requires funding for literacy coaches and provides funding to hire and train literacy paraprofessionals to help with students who struggle. I am already trained in the science of reading, but look forward to ongoing coaching to help me implement and improve what I have learned.

As a society, do we value literacy? If we do, then we need to make sure that every child gets to school every day. We need to make sure that assessments measure what we want students to do. And we must require that lawmakers write and pass research-informed educational laws that will improve, not hinder, learning.

Kristen Pearson is a public elementary school teacher with a master’s degree in teaching and learning from the University of Utah.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.