> Subject: Flunking makes no sense: NYTimes
> > Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:27:36 EST
> > http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/30hous.html
> >
> > January 30, 1999
> >
> > Flunking Students Is No Cure-All
> >
> > By ERNEST R. HOUSE
> >
> > [B] OULDER, Colo.-- President Clinton's latest education
> > proposals have been getting him enthusiastic
> > applause. But on one point, at least, we should be wary.
> >
> > In his State of the Union address, Mr. Clinton objected
> > strongly to social promotion -- passing students to the
> > next grade level even when they haven't learned very
> > much -- and he lauded the "retention" program now being
> > used in Chicago as proof that flunking students improves
> > achievement.
> >
> > One problem with the President's pitch is that no
> > comprehensive evaluation has been conducted of the
> > Chicago program. More broadly, the danger is that
> > advocates of retention will hear only part of the
> > President's words -- they will ignore his warning that
> > simply holding students back a grade isn't enough. This
> > would be unfortunate, because research has clearly shown
> > that flunking students to improve their academic
> > performance is ineffective and even harmful.
> >
> > In fact, school districts in many parts of the country
> > already flunk huge numbers of students. The Chicago
> > system has held back about 12,000 elementary students in
> > grades three, six and eight in each of the last two
> > years. And New York City is considering going back to a
> > more active use of retention.
> >
> > All of those involved should learn from the past. In the
> > early 1980's New York City went through one of its
> > periodic cycles of flunking students who weren't keeping
> > up. In a study for the Mayor's office at the time, other
> > educators and I found that the effort was a failure.
> >
> > Back then, if public school students in grades four and
> > seven did not make a minimum score on a standardized
> > test that year, they were sent to summer school. If they
> > did not achieve the test's cutoff score after summer
> > school, they were held back in special classes. About 25
> > percent of all fourth and seventh graders were held back
> > in the first year.
> >
> > These students did not merely repeat the curriculum they
> > had previously failed to master. The city hired 1,100
> > more teachers so students could be educated in separate,
> > smaller classes of 18. And it gave the teachers of these
> > classes special training.
> >
> > Nevertheless, after a few years the retained students
> > had gained no more academically than low-achieving
> > students in previous years who had been passed.
> >
> > Later studies showed that the dropout rate for the New
> > York students who flunked was much higher than the rate
> > for similar students who had not been retained.
> >
> > Numerous studies on retention across the country have
> > yielded similar results. If the evidence is so
> > overwhelming, why does support for retention resurface
> > with such virulence? Because the idea is intuitive, in a
> > way -- you have to walk before you can run. But this
> > linear notion of intellectual development ignores some
> > thorny questions. For example, boys and girls develop at
> > different rates, and many more boys are retained.
> >
> > Advocates of retention are certainly correct in
> > concluding that it is irresponsible to let students
> > simply drift through ineffective schools. But retention,
> > besides not working, is an awfully costly way to attack
> > that problem. The Chicago effort is costing more than
> > $100 million a year.
> >
> > There are better ways to spend that kind of money,
> > proven steps that can bolster achievement. The President
> >
> > mentioned a few, like providing extra help to those in
> > need through summer schools and after-school programs,
> > though New York's experience in the 1980's suggests such
> > intervention comes too late for many. A more effective
> > strategy has been "reading recovery." Students who read
> > poorly are identified in first grade. Then specially
> > trained teachers tutor these students on reading skills
> > for one-half hour a day for 12 to 20 weeks.
> >
> > Within a few months these students show remarkable gains
> > in achievement.
> >
> > When a drug is proved unsafe and ineffective, doctors do
> > not continue prescribing it. The failure of widespread
> > retention has been consistently documented. It is
> > nothing more than a way to write off tens of thousands
> > of youngsters.
> >
> > Ernest R. House is a professor of education at the
> > University of Colorado.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives |
> > Marketplace
> >
> > Quick News | Page One Plus | International | National/N.Y.
> > | Business | Technology | Science | Sports | Weather |
> > Editorial | Op-Ed | Arts | Automobiles | Books |
> > Diversions | Job Market | Real Estate | Travel
> >
> > Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today
> >
> > Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company
>
> --
> Kenneth S. Goodman, Professor, Language, Reading & Culture
> 504 College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
> fax 520 7456895 phone 520 6217868
>
> These are mean times- and in the mean time
> We need to Learn to Live Under Water
--
Kenneth S. Goodman, Professor, Language, Reading & Culture
504 College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
fax 520 7456895 phone 520 6217868
These are mean times- and in the mean time
We need to Learn to Live Under Water