I think that was an excellent comparison of two groups, with rules that
they take as legitimate in opposition.
bb
>Hi everybody--
>
>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
>> >
>> >
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]