I think where retention has its logic is in the system aspect. In
statistics one often takes out the "outliners" because they may give a
false impression of the mean. In education its similar, if we see the mean
as the area where instruction and curriculum is directed at. It is not so
much the fact that research has ever demonstrated that retention works on a
student level, but rather its use or perceived benefit is on the
curricular, classroom level. If we have students (outliners) either below
or above the mean by a significant margin that is bound the impact
instruction and curriculum in fundamental ways.
Now, with new standards that mean is being increased even more as Ken
points out (70% and above) which of course will give us more outliners and
retention being seen as the likely option. I don't think the reasoning is
one where a student will perform better in a grade two classroom in
contrast to a grade three, but simply like a "researcher" a desire to get
rid of the outliners in the sample or classroom.
It is not so much the value of retention but the lack of other options. We
do have compulsary schooling so the students have to be somewhere and
retention or segregating students in special education are the only viable
options. Its not a question if retention or special education actually
help students learn, but rather the function it serves for the system. With
the desire to increase standards other measures have been applied such as a
nationally acclaimed "community of learners" school in our district.
Scores are up, but what they don't tell you is there was a 5 year reform
program where the district was lobbied and boundries redrawn to get the
outliners out of the school (students of color and poverty).
I don't know where this lead us, but asking the question if it helps the
learner or not does seem too limiting. Highstakes testing is bound to
motivate changes on a systematic level where districts are redrawn
(resegregating schools), more pull out programs, and greater retention.
Focusing on questions such as should we hold kids back? Pull them out of
the classroom? Resegregate our schools? misses the larger issue, in my
view, of how standurdized tests and the high stakes involved make answering
these questions in the affirmitive the likely outcome.
Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul H. Dillon <dillonph who-is-at northcoast.com>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 1999 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: social promotion
> Ken,
>
> How, then, do we account for the persistence of retention? Is everyone
> just stupid? There sure isn't a problem of keeping the desks occupied.
> Are there perhaps other studies that, as is often the case, show the
exact
> opposite to be the case? If there's 100 years of demonstrated evidence
> that retention has no value it's really hard to understand why it's still
> around.
>
> Paul
>
> ----------
> > From: Ken Goodman <kgoodman who-is-at u.arizona.edu>
> > To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
> > Subject: Re: social promotion
> > Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 10:09 AM
> >
> > 100 years ago Rice did a study called laggards in our schools. In it he
> > found what research always has shown:
> > Students who are not retained do better than those who are.
> > Retention leads to a number of unintended results-
> > resentful overage bullies who take out their shame on their
> > younger
> > classmates
> > Higher rates of dropouts when pupils reach the legal age and
> > internal
> > dropouts- kids eventually tuneout when they stay
> > Retention does mean a second chance to do things differently.
> > Almost always it means repeating what didn't work the first time.
> >
> > In fact, the only evidence of success of retention is when it is done
> > because of the lack of immaturity of the learner and that should be a
> > joint decision of parents and teachers and pupils.
> >
> > Studies also show the retention is much more widely used with
minorities
> > and poor children from poor families.
> >
> > An inflexible policy of retention compounds itself. Children who repeat
> > one grade are very likely to repeat a second or third time during their
> > careers.
> >
> > Ironically, the Rice study focussed on the financial costs to schools
of
> > keeping kids a grade more than a year.
> >
> > One more issue: in countries where school attendance is not compulsory
> > or attendance is not well enforced, the children who do not succeed
> > disappear from the schools. In Mexico for example schools routinely
plan
> > two second grade classes for every three first grade classes. The norm
> > if that a third of the children will not pass to second grade.
> > Ken Goodman
>