Re: social promotion

Ken Goodman (kgoodman who-is-at u.arizona.edu)
Sun, 26 Sep 1999 12:10:59 -0700

Are there other studies on retention? Sure, but I know of none that show
any benefit from it- perhaps someone does. Why does it keep coming up
again? It's part of a long tradition of blaming the learner for the
lack of success of the system. Punishment for not learning has never
been successful in any form- even Skinner opposed negative
reinforcement.

And a persistent myth not only among the public but among some
educators is that one can slice learning into grade level pieces which
all learners can be expected to "acquire" or "achieve". Retention is an
alternative not to promotion (itself a misnomer) but to expulsion. And
as I said, in many parts of the world those who fail are pushed out and
not retained.

When we began to seriously enforce compulsory education until a
prescribed age- in most state 16, eliminating non-achievers was not a
possible alternative.

Organizing kids into rough age groups for instruction has some social
justification and it eliminates one aspect of variability among learners
but only one. Effective teaching doesn't decrease variability within age
groups it increases it. That's because of different rates of
acceleration in learning but it also is because interests broaden and
deepen among the learners. Attempts to enforce so-called standards for
promotion from grade to grade reify the grades as if there is third
grade knowledge which is distantly different from fourth grade
knowledge. Even if there were a clear sequence of concepts to be
acquired in any aspect of human knowledge- math or science for examples-
there still would be no justification for believing that that sequence
can be assigned meaningfully to year long slices to be learned in order.
Kindergarten children arrive in school highly variable interests and
experiences. By the time they are 11 schools have played an important
roles in what their knowledge interest and experiences. But the logic
that says because they are in the 6th grade they should all be at the
point in their learning and that no child who isn't "ready" for sixth
grade should be not be permitted to enter.

There is a difference between what the curricular goals are- those
should be societal- and the means for achieving them. That why we have
professional teachers. Limiting the teachers' professional ability to
help all children toward these societal goals by requiring them to fail
those who cannot perform on high stakes tests is not the answer. Neither
is extending the school day or the school year to help the losers "catch
up". That only takes away what little time they have for play- and for
learning outside of school. And it violates what we have learned about
the "law of diminishing returns"

Hope I've helped to put some perspective on this latest resurrection of
failing non-achievers.

Ken