As one who has a "no nonsense" approach to education and sees little gray area when it comes to most issues, I am still perplexed by this debate. I am currently completing a 600 hour counseling internship at a high school and the notion of grade promotion in an effort to prevent social repercussions is ludicrous. If you don't pass, you don't get credit and you take the class(es) again. It seems to be a no-brainer that if you can't demonstrate proficiency at one level, you will not be able to do so at the next. For example, a 9th grade student who did not pass Physical Science part A will not be promoted to Biology part A as a 10th grader until he/she has passed the class he/she failed. This means he/she will have to do night or summer school to redeem the credit or take the course during the school day the next time it is offered (typically the next year). The catch here is that provided they have earned enough credits, they will be coded as progressing to the next grade despite the failing grade. So in some respects, the student has been "promoted" even though they have failed.
My issue lies with the middle schooler who is socially promoted to high school knowing the low likelihood that he/she will be able to keep up with the material in their classes. This is where I believe social promotion without appropriate supplemental support is detrimental to students and sets them up to be drop outs. Sure, it seems like the right thing to pass the 8th grader along so he/she will not have to endure the shame of being left behind by his/her class, but what happens when they are thrown into high school and learn that the work is harder, teachers are not going to do it for them, and they do not have the appropriate study skills for success? At it's core, I think social promotion has the best of intentions, but it simply prolongs the inevitable failure of the student when sufficient support does not accompany that promotion. No parent wants to trade their child feeling like he/she is just like everyone else in age, grade level, and projected graduating class for him/her being academically lost and lagging behind their peers intellectually. Sure, an argument can be made for social promotion in elementary school, but parents and other stakeholders will reap what they sow when these promoted students reach high school.
My issue lies with the middle schooler who is socially promoted to high school knowing the low likelihood that he/she will be able to keep up with the material in their classes. This is where I believe social promotion without appropriate supplemental support is detrimental to students and sets them up to be drop outs. Sure, it seems like the right thing to pass the 8th grader along so he/she will not have to endure the shame of being left behind by his/her class, but what happens when they are thrown into high school and learn that the work is harder, teachers are not going to do it for them, and they do not have the appropriate study skills for success? At it's core, I think social promotion has the best of intentions, but it simply prolongs the inevitable failure of the student when sufficient support does not accompany that promotion. No parent wants to trade their child feeling like he/she is just like everyone else in age, grade level, and projected graduating class for him/her being academically lost and lagging behind their peers intellectually. Sure, an argument can be made for social promotion in elementary school, but parents and other stakeholders will reap what they sow when these promoted students reach high school.
2 comments:
The interesting evidence I've seen when social promotion was not practiced was when 8th graders had been retained for several years. Here in the volatile mix of the last of middle school years, there were 16 year old boys, in all their post-pubescent glory, in the same classes with pre-pubescent students. Not across the board but a very odd mix to say the least. Boys who were shaving daily, dating, driving (!!) placed in classroom settings with students who were several years away from these experiences.
In some ways, social promotion to high school, where the developmental focus for students is on finding themselves, may not be as detrimental as retaining students in middle grades. In high school, students who are struggling academically may find expressions in technical education offerings, or other clubs and activities that allow them to define themselves as competent and valued.
Do you think in looking at social promotion we also need to look at what exactly we are teting in the various standardized test used in the state of Georgia? What are we truly measuring?
You bring up an interesting point, Marcy; the use of social promotion due to developmental differences between the student in question and those in their correct grades. A retention in elementary or middle school does not have the same implications or consequences as a retention in the 8th grade. My only fear is that in our efforts to shield these students from the social stigma associated with retention, we set them up for failure in the 9th grade--arguably the most critical grade in high school.
To answer your final question, without having any standardized tests handy (and I am not a certified teacher) I'd like to hope we are testing students on the information they need to be considered proficient in the content areas taught. This proficiency should prepare them to perform in their everyday world beyong high school be it in the work place or an institution of higher education. I do not necessarily think an overhaul of testing is in order, however, I believe more legislative and policy making power should be placed in the hands of real educators rather than non-educators.
Post a Comment