I think that Nate's keen observation reveals differences in goals among
school reformers who argue for educational equity. Some people (e.g.,
Delpit) see the problem of current educational inequity in
overrepresentation of minority kids and kids from poor families among school
underachievers. They would seem to be happy if all social groups would fail
equally frequent (or equally rare). This group of reformers does not want to
fundamentally change the institution of school as a competitive place for
students but rather wants to provide "equal opportunities" for the
competition.
The other group of reformers (e.g., McDermott, Heath) is concerned with any
student being failed and what to eliminate failure from the
institutionalized education. They want to make fundamental
reforms/transformations of school institution to eliminate the competition
among the students when academic success of one student is failure of
another, when educational goal implies and constructs failure (like in the
case of standards). There may be other groups of reformers (some of which
even would deny the notion of "reform" all together).
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nate [mailto:schmolze@students.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 12:59 PM
> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: social promotion, several unrelated comments
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Judy Diamondstone <diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu>
> To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 9:58 AM
> Subject: Re: social promotion, several unrelated comments
>
>
> Judy and others,
>
> Curious as to other changes in the 5 year program, although your analysis
> might be on target. For example, with James Gee coming on board
> at our SOE
> there has been insitutional changes also. One being the majority of time
> and education ocurring in the school themselves (many more
> practicums/internships). Another being it is now ok to teach again (that
> one is going to get me in trouble). This has ocurred in Early Education
> also with *Tools of the Mind* being handed out free as if they
> were bibles.
>
> I think one aspect of standards that tends to be overlooked is its
> progressive aspect. One being how it tends to be reasoned about as a
> conservative restoration when that's only half the story. In my neck of
> the woods, it is the "progressive" discourse of class and race. For
> example, as I have shared before, in my kids school it is the discourse of
> racial and class equity that is motivating the more standard
> based approach
> to education. It is not only district, but class, race, and gender
> analysis that get published in the paper. The teachers justify the
> standards approach as "high expectations for all children" in which the
> schools with a high population of poor and "minority" students will not
> receive a second rate education. Pressure from our African American
> community that African American students tend to be tracked to lower level
> classes and therefore are denied access to the local University. A
> discourse in which the "child centered", "developmental discourse" is one
> of low expectations with implicit if not explicit racism and
> classism. This
> of course has been described by Delpit with the progressive ideal of
> needing "to give" certain children voice. For me, not only does
> it get very
> complicated but is full of cultural and personal contradictions.
>
> I don't see the needs of the "progressive" aspects of the rush to
> standards
> being addressed either by progressive or conservative educational circles.
> It doesn't seem to matter if we naturalize culture and power through
> biology or culture, the results tend to be the same. While many teachers
> proclaim and are motivated by the talk of equity the outcome is entirely
> different. Students and their learning become more segmented with those
> students that are so often neglected being schooled, as Mike pointed out,
> in "rotten study/working conditions".
>
> Nate
>
>
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >