Readers Write: Student illiteracy, the merits of the Electoral College

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In the Oct. 11 Star Tribune, columnist Denise Johnson wrote about the poor state of literacy in Minnesota (“Boost literacy levels for Minn. students,” Strib Voices). The Star Tribune has printed some version of this opinion multiple times over the years. I agree the poor reading proficiency in our state is multifactorial, but declining reading proficiency in Minnesota (and nationally) started well before the pandemic. Without question, most blame should fall on the professional administrators of our public schools. There are certainly exceptions, but too many administrators clung to and invested in outdated, unproven reading curricula. For decades, young students were actually taught to read by guessing words based on pictures. Intensive phonics instruction was rejected in favor of so-called visual cuing. For years, dyslexia and other reading experts begged public school districts for more phonics instruction. Unfortunately, public school administrators continued to invest millions of taxpayer dollars in failed reading programs. Only recently has the state mandated phonics-based reading instruction.

Why did this take so long? Why were the incentives to purchase failed reading curricula more powerful than the needs of our students? Evidence showing the benefits of phonics isn’t new. Why was this evidence overlooked for so many years? Anyone attending a school board meeting in the last several years can see why reading instruction has fallen by the wayside. These meetings too often focus on building new facilities and “21st-century building spaces.” School board meetings spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing the latest technology needs or upcoming bonds and levies. Sometimes, school board meetings devolve into political theater. Academic performance just isn’t on the agenda.

As long as administrators continue to blame parents, students, the state, the pandemic — basically everyone else — reading proficiency will remain disappointingly low. Public school administrators need to look inward. Professional educators need to stop blaming others and accept responsibility for their failures. Maybe then our young readers will receive the instruction they deserve.

H. Zis Weisberg, Stillwater

•••

Sadly, until Minnesota makes early childhood brain development a priority, there is little hope that the funding and strategies cited by Johnson in “Boost literacy levels for Minn. students” will work. What is missing? The “neuroscience of reading” — the body of research that has found that auditory processing and memory is the key to proficient reading. Language and literacy is primarily auditory, not visual. Consider this: Can a person who is blind learn to read? Yes, very well, through their sense of touch and acute sense of sound. But people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing usually struggle to learn to read. So, how do we help children’s brains be ready to read? There is ample evidence that singing songs and practicing basic music skills daily with young children works! Here are some free activities, strategies, and a musical fitness assessment to use by parents, caregivers and prekindergarten and kindergarten teachers: rocknreadproject.org.

Ann Kay, Minnetonka

The writer is education coordinator and co-founder for the Rock ‘n’ Read Project.

•••

In Johnson’s thoughtful and informative column, it was reassuring to learn that Minneapolis schools are now using “science of reading” strategies to help young students become better readers and that generous funding to support these efforts is being provided by the Minneapolis Foundation, AmeriCorps and Literacy Minnesota. While it is encouraging to know Minneapolis schools are being equipped and empowered in these various ways, I would like to draw public attention to another literacy program that is making a noticeable difference in the lives of young students — a program known as Reading Partners.

Reading Partners is a national program with a Minnesota branch that seeks to place volunteer tutors in schools. The program provides one of the best opportunities for concerned adults to become actively involved in the effort to help students become better readers. As a retired teacher myself who is serving again this year as a volunteer tutor, I can report that the experience of working one-on-one with a young student has the potential to be — and commonly is — a heartwarming and rewarding experience for both the tutor and the student. I’m writing this letter to encourage adults in our community to consider donating an hour of time each week as a Reading Partner volunteer to a young student whose life may be permanently changed by the kindness and encouragement of a caring adult.

Reading Partners has been working in Minnesota as a nonprofit organization for about a decade, and it continues to rely on the generosity and kindness of caring adults — ”ordinary folks” who want to make a difference. As Brooke Rivers, Reading Partners’ local executive director, has noted, “The more volunteers we can get in the door, the more students we can serve.” Those interested in serving as volunteer tutors can find more information about Reading Partners at several online sites. The need for tutors is great, and now is the perfect time for those with hearts to serve to step forward and become volunteers in an outstanding service program.

Charles Hanson, Brooklyn Park

In Sunday’s Strib Voices section, a letter writer talked about the Electoral College (“More Electoral College absurdity”). Although I agree for the most part about the irrationality of the concept, I see it as a good thing that, as a non-swing state, we are in a group of states subjected to only 30% of the overall campaign spending and very minimal candidate visits. Please, let’s keep the Electoral College!

Bruce Lemke, Orono

•••

If D.J. Tice believes the Electoral College is the perfect system for electing leaders, why doesn’t any other country replicate it? (“Walz is wrong about the Electoral College,” Strib Voices, Oct. 14.) In the same vein, why haven’t the U.S. states implemented the same system for electing governors, senators, etc.?

Mark Wagner, Minneapolis

•••

I agree with Tice’s defense of the Electoral College. I also agree with the Oct. 15 letter writers supporting it. I would rather have the seven near-equally divided swing states deciding the presidential election than California alone.

Matthew L. Rowles, North Oaks

•••

Those arguing for keeping the Electoral College are confusing the issue when they say that large states would determine the election’s winner if the country changed to a national popular vote. If we throw out the Electoral College, states won’t determine the election, people will. People aren’t states, and candidates will be forced to campaign wherever people are.

Paul Rozycki, Minneapolis

•••

Gov. Tim Walz last week during an interview in California stated that if elected he would pursue changing the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College. This is an insult to all Minnesotans because the Electoral College was designed to provide extra influence to lesser populated states, such as Minnesota, in national elections. As governor of our state, he is proposing a partisan action that would reduce our state’s impact in presidential elections to the detriment of all Minnesotans. Does he not understand the purpose and function of the Electoral College?

Tom Mader, Circle Pines

•••

It helps the understanding of the Electoral College to look at how it came to be in the Constitution. The slaveholding South rejected direct election of the president because the North had more voters. Selection by Congress contradicted separation of powers. The compromise was to elect representatives from each state to elect the president. The number of electors was to be equal to the number of representatives in the House, which were based on population. The enslavers insisted that slaves count toward the total population. The “compromise” was to count each slave as three-fifths of a person. Of course, slaves did not vote. It was necessary to make this concession or the slaveholding South would not have joined the United States.

The Electoral College is indelibly stained by slavery. Walz got it right.

William Smithson, Rochester