2. Paul, you wrote:
>Even in the traditional schooling model it would require a lot
>more teachers and, as you probably know very well, teaching in this country
>isn't a career that generates a lot of
In my experience as a teacher educator, students entering our new 5-year
program are brighter, more enthusiastic, more 'hip' about schooling than
most students in the old program were. So maybe the standards push IS having
a beneficial effect on public schooling, by raising professional standards
as intended and thus raising the status of teachers. (yes, sure, there's a
long row to hoe in the wider culture for teaching to spark the excited
conversation at cocktail parties that it does in teacher prep classrooms,
but there IS a light on the horizon - imho at the moment.)
3. Philip, I tried to send a message to your personal email a few days ago
Phillip_White who-is-at ceo.cudenver.edu
but it bounced. any idea why?
Judy
At 06:55 AM 9/26/99 -0500, you wrote:
>XCMA,
>
>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
>>
>
>
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183