Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reading Instruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Presenter says vision-tracking screening could address reading decline; advocates urge classroom pilot
Summary
Mary Mahalka told the House Committee on Education that simple vision-tracking tests and low-cost in-class exercises can identify and improve reading difficulties she says are mistaken for dyslexia or attention disorders. She described small, low-cost interventions and urged pilots in Idaho schools.
Boise — Mary Mahalka, a former teacher, told the Idaho House Committee on Education that many students who struggle to read may have remediable vision-tracking problems that standard classroom practice and diagnoses overlook.
"We are failing to meet the needs of children to develop effective reading and comprehension skills," Mahalka told the committee as she opened a roughly 20-minute demonstration and presentation. She cited national fourth-grade reading data and said testing she described in other settings found a high rate of vision-tracking difficulties: "When she tested the inmates there, 70 plus percent of the inmates had vision tracking difficulties," Mahalka said of a developmental optometrist’s work at Folsom Prison, quoting published work by the optometrist she referenced.
Mahalka described brief, low-cost screening steps she said can be done one student at a time, followed by simple daily exercises parents or volunteers can supervise. Her demonstration included a small hand-held tube, horizontal figure-eight eye movements, near-point tracking with a pencil, heel-toe and knee-tap coordination drills and a visible-dot exercise she described as an "X on the wall" activity to train eye focus and crossing the midline of the brain.
Committee members asked how the exercises related to established reading instruction. Representative Gerhardt asked how the approach intersects with phonics; Mahalka said the exercises are "in line with teaching" and can be used alongside phonics instruction. She described the method as complementary to standard classroom techniques and suitable for ages she said range "from 4 to 94," though she acknowledged some very young children may need to wait until they are developmentally ready.
Members sought operational detail about classroom use and parental involvement. Mahalka said teachers could introduce the screening, but recommended training parents or volunteers to carry out daily practice; she said the materials are inexpensive and the principal cost is staff or volunteer time. Representative Hill, who introduced Mahalka to the committee, said his son benefited from the approach and urged the committee to explore ways to pilot it in schools.
Mahalka framed the intervention as an affordable, behaviorally based approach that could reduce misdiagnoses and improve learning and classroom behavior. She provided committee members a testing sheet and suggested a short training for teachers, paraprofessionals or volunteers to implement the exercises and reward charts she described. The committee did not take action on the proposal but members thanked Mahalka for the presentation and suggested follow-up on possible school pilots or volunteer training.
