Our stake approaches people, but there is no pressure to attend if the person doesn’t respond with enthusiasm – or at least determination. It then becomes an open invitation for the future. (That’s what I meant by accepting negative responses. Sorry for the confusion.)

Melinda’s last paragraph (#16) highlights the issue of the Church’s inability in this type of program to demand effort and focus and attendance – to impose consequences of almost any sort short of expulsion, and even that could be very problematic. For that reason, I believe the ideal would be more of an application process among competing applicants – knowing that might never be possible. If we must stick to the volunteer and accept anyone who agrees to attend model, I still think we should separate those with severe mental and/or emotional issues from those without them. The proper instructional model for each group simply is too different to succeed, IMHO.

That’s why one of my suggestions is that each student ASK to be taught and articulate their reason for asking. It is working best in our stake when our leaders are identifying potential students and asking them if they want to participate (and accepting negative responses) – instead of approaching it almost like an assignment that should be accepted.

The gospel can be a powerful motivator in learning to read. One branch of my own family went from marginal literacy in one generation to school teachers in the next, because after having joined the church the family was hungry to read the scriptures. Laubach Literacy operates as a secular program, but its origins are through Protestant missionary experience with converts who wanted to read the Bible for themselves.

So I can see how literacy could be a natural fit for Relief Society service.

It seems to me that for the more advanced student, using the KJV along with a standard Engish version of the Bible might be a good exercise.

I learned that you can’t teach much at all in two hours a week. If someone is going to learn to read, it would take a lot more time commitment. Our ward program asks for volunteers to volunteer as little as one hour a month. One hour a month! Reading takes much more than that, and the ward is afraid to ask for it.

I’ll be tutoring two dyslexic children this summer. I’ve spent at least 80 hours reading books about how to teach reading in general and to dyslexic kids in specific and brainstorming lesson plans and ideas. The ward would be hard pressed to find someone willing to put that kind of time into a calling besides bishop or RS Pres. The people who are willing to work like that already have mega-callings.

This tutoring is not Church-affiliated. Personally, I wouldn’t like to do it through the Church because of how laidback Church has to be. It’s okay if you’re late, don’t come, don’t do anything, have a bad attitude, mouth off. Yuck. These people are paying me; their kids are going to be on time and on task; and I expect the parents to read out loud to their children regularly. If they don’t comply, then I can quit. I’m hoping that sort of structure will make both the students and families take this seriously. If it was a Church calling, I wouldn’t dare even tell them to stay on task, or insinuate to the parents that they ought to read to their kids at home.