Get Schooled

By Hope

March 25, 2005 08:19 AM | Link to this

Social promotion is a “catch 22.” I think that the people that put this into place had the best intentions for the students that it would affect but as the years have gone by it has become overused and an excuse to “get the child out of my class.” I think that most teachers teach with the awesome task in mind that they are servicing all of their children even the ones that are not on grade level. Yes, it is an awesome, thankless task but we do it. What are we to do with those that are not on grade level? I have been saying for a couple of years now that we must teach them on their level so that they will build upon that foundation that they need and they will gain the confidence that they need to explore new opportunities that are offered to them. How are we to do this? Well, I think that we should send the child to the grade that they are on. For example I have a child in the third grade that is reading on a first grade level. He is on level pretty much in the rest of the subjects so why can’t we send him to a first grade during reading to get those skills that he needs in order to be successful in the third grade? I think that if we target these students early before middle or high school we would e better off. Yes, social promotion has become a way to get the “bad” children out of the school but we do need to keep the welfare of the students in mind.

By Sheree

March 25, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

The best example of social promotion is President Bush. He’s an example of how one’s connections, not one’s intellectual prowess propels a person into the realm of success. The difference between social promotion for Bush and many others (primarily the poor and minority) in our society is that when Bush was promoted he fell into a safety net of others who stood ready to “catch” him and positon him some place in the social order so that he does not fall through the cracks. So he “lands” in a cushiony job with all of the fringes. When it becomes apparent that he can’t perform the job given, he’s given another job and the cycle continues until he gets a place that “works” for him. In the interim, if he happens to get into trouble, let’s say, breaks the law, he’s slightly reprimanded, if he falls into drug use, he gets remediation and not 15 years behind bars. You get the picture. Social promotion is practiced in our society everyday, mainly by white males. It’s just that when it’s social promotion for the neediest, poor, minority, it all of a sudden becomes an issue. I say to find out how social promotion works, we should ask the biggest beneficiary of social promotion—the president of these united states. Having said that, I agree with Hope when se says “we must teach them [children]on their level so that they will build upon that foundation that they need and they will gain the confidence that they need to explore new opportunities that are offered to them.” I am not an advocate of social promotion, but neither am I a fan of retaining children in the same grade, when there’s absolutely no indication that it works. Research has consitently demonstrated that retaining children leads high dropout rates, low self-esteem and other negative outcomes. If the child does not get what he needs in one grade then he should be allowed to move forward and get remedial help along the way. I am so tired of hearing how students are moved forward without knowing the basics. Well, if the theachers taught the basics better we wouldn’t have the problem. In very rare cases, children simply can’t master a concept becuase of servere learning disabilities, etc. But in most cases, if taught well, they will learn. We do not have to give in to social promotion, but neither should we hold kids back. Here’s a novel idea: Let’s teach what they need to know to progress to the next grade.

By David

March 25, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this

sheree…why didn’t you just say 3 things: 1) you don’t like BUSH (i guess over 50% of the AMERICAN people socially promoted him to office AGAIN)2) you have a problem with white males 3) it’s the teachers fault (here we go again)that kids can’t/don’t learn…that would have saved you some breath….

By David

March 25, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

ps…sheree….as for your last comment…unless they do have serious disabilities (learning, physical)..we are trying to teach them what they need to know…mainly to behave and respect authority….that is a BASIC idea that should have been taught from the cradle…if the parents could somehow grasp that concept…then a normal 55 minute class could actually be 55 minutes of teaching reading and math..and not 15 minutes of teaching and 40 minutes of disciplinary action..

By David

March 25, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this

ok sheree, i’m going to lighten up a bit…i do understand that parents are sending us the best they have, all they have, i do understand that…BUT it is a formidable task to try to teach a child who is abused, has no role models, no guidance and probably doesn’t know where he will get his last meal or sleep…i do empathize with that and it is a sad situation…but many just flat refuse to try….ok…so there are several different types of kids here that i am talking about…some will be saved and some not….the answer lies in parenting…i’m not saying that will change…but for the most part..you know these parents aren’t going to change sheree…but i believe we are going to have to separate the kids that have the potential and will try and those that just are here because they have to be and they don’t care and therefore interfere with those that are “riding the fence” so to speak…also…i want to apologize for my previous comments to you, it was wrong for me to say that, you have a right to your opinion..

By CD

March 25, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

“Well, if the theachers taught the basics better we wouldn’t have the problem. In very rare cases, children simply can’t master a concept becuase of servere learning disabilities, etc. But in most cases, if taught well, they will learn.”

I am glad you had such a good “theacher.” Did she theach you to “profreed” as well? “theachersâ€???? “becuaseâ€???? “servereâ€???? Your teachers’ faults, I’m sure.

Teachers are not limited by their knowledge. They are limited by your kids’ lack of attention, concern and motivation. Teachers are the most highly trained group in any society… where do you think everyone learns to do what THEY do? Teachers are also better trained today than they have ever been. So why is there a lag in education? What has changed? Parents. Period. If you spent a little more time looking in your mirror and a little less time blaming people who work harder for your kids than you do, our schools would be better.

By C.R.H.

March 25, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Social promotion hurts every student in the classroom. I am tired of dealing with “remedial” kids who are clearly the product of alcohol/drug abuse, as well as the sorry 16 year old freshmen who just “don’t feel like doing this”. I am also not too concerned about their self esteem…they should feel bad about themselves, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to show up and turn things in (which is about all they are required to do). As far as the comment about retention leading to dropping out…guess what…they are still going to drop out because they will fail, after they have wasted a substantial amount of resources and taxpayer money. 2 words, BOOT CAMP!

By Ms Scott

March 25, 2005 05:33 PM | Link to this

When my son was in 6th grade, he came home one day to inform me of things going on in school. 1st, being in the six grade made the kids feel as though they were grown because they were now able to make choices of their own. 2nd, the girls became interested in the boys that were already retained in the 6th grade. The new comers of the 6th graders (boys)thought that this was cool, because they are now interested in the girls, so the boys stop working to get the girls attention. The girls like the boys (the kept back boys) because it made them feel like they were liking/going with an older boy. This makes no sense at all to an adult, but to the 6th graders who are not thinking about their futures, it make sense to them. This has nothing to do with how well I raise my child. Especially when his surrounding is showing him something different. Some kids are strong will and some are followers trying to fit in somewhere. And as a parent, I make it my business to sit in my son’s class often by choice.

By David

March 29, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

Guys, this is a no-win situation for schools. For generations “advanced education” was for the people who were going into a profession. A person could get a decent paying job with a 5th or 6th grade education. 16 year-old “adults” in the 5th grade quit school and got a job. When I was hiring people in the 60’s, I never cared if they graduated from school or not. Now, jobs that I used to hire drop-outs for, go to high school graduates. All I wanted to know was if the person could perform the tasks the job required. This is no longer true. A job that I held now requires a two-year degree (I had a high school diploma). Now that a “free and appropriate education” is everyone’s “right,â€? the schools are caught in the middle. Educators know the average ability of people has not changed. Holding kids in school longer, without recess, does not make them smarter; all it does is develop more discipline problems because the teachers are frustrated and the children get angry and rebellious! As the kids say, “Duh!â€? If we fail the kids because they don’t learn – for whatever reason – we’re a failing school because of the drop-out rate. If we socially promote the kids, and they can’t pass “the test,â€? we’re a failing school. We can’t win. Now some of the kids are problem kids because of _ you pick: A) bad parents B) bad teachers C) whatever; I agree. It’s irrelevant, because they are not a large percentage of the population. In many cases, at the high school level, the problems are caused by frustrated kids asking, “Why do I need to learn this?â€? In many cases the true answer is, “Because it’s going to be on the Georgia High School Graduation Test.â€?

Now, I keep hearing the mantra, “All children can learn.â€? That is a beautiful sentiment; a tear just rolled down my cheek – buffalo chips! Yes, all children can learn; not all children can learn enough to pass a subject. Whether you believe in evolution or not, there has been no change in the average IQ for thousands of years. Certain subjects are past the abilities of the general population – period. Calculus, trigonometry, chemistry, and trigonometry-based physics are examples. The “good-paying technical jobsâ€? require the ability to pass those type subjects. Guys, think! If it was easy, everybody could do it, and the business community would pay minimum wage. Just because your child passed that course does not mean he/she has the ability to do the job. Remember: teachers pass kids that don’t learn the subject (see above). Where my son works as a C++ programmer, two of the programmers have degrees in English. Yes, that’s right – English! They’re working out of field, because English teachers get paid very little, and programmers get paid very well. It only took a short time to learn that skill, because they were smart! The only reason those type jobs get paid so well is because few people are able to do it! Education won’t fix that; it’s not our job!

By Tyler

March 29, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Social Promotion is a dinosaur. Someone decades ago decided that they had a great idea to help kids feel good about going to school. Now, it’s become a standard practice in our schools. My mother has been a teacher at a local middle school for over 16 years, and social promotion is becoming an ever growing problem. The way it works in her school is that the teachers grade the students work, mostly on completion, and provide a final grade for the students at the end of each quarter, with multiple progress reports throughout the quarter. At this point I should mention, that most administrators make it known that you are a bad teacher if too many people fail. With over 75% of the grade awarded for completion assignments, I find it hard to blame teachers for students who aren’t even willing to fill in A,B,C, or D on 10 mind numbingly simple questions. So, the teachers modify the curve to help out students that might have had a bad day, but in the end there are still 50% failure rates in many of the classes I’ve seen. So, at the end of the year each teacher sends in their grades, and if students have failed an overwhelming majority of their classes they’re put on the retention list. Then this list hits the administrators, who haven’t spent half the time the teachers have with these students, and they make a final decision whether to Socially Promote these students. The administrators hold back the most severe cases and let everyone go. My mom has taught several illiterate kids that have been Socially Promoted.

The teachers teach, the administrators manage, and Social Promotion is a purely a managment decision. It’s not for the kids, or the teachers, it’s a managerial move to avoid logistics problems. You simply can’t hold back 50% of the students, of the system gets backed up.

Here’s a novel idea. Hold everyone back who hasn’t learned the material. There will be plenty of other kids held back, so the stigma will be gone, and there will likely be a uniform failure rate throughout the grade levels, so the backup won’t happen.

By GC

March 29, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Strict retention policies in the past produced results like having 16-year-old middle schoolers who refused to try, disrupted class, and exposed other younger children to things they didn’t need. It’s nothing but a formula for the creation of a terrible group of problem students, and rarely does any good. Retention once may produce some good results. Twice, and there’s little improvement. More than twice, and the retainee gets little or nothing from the retention and becomes a huge problem.

By Vic

March 29, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this

David, You have a good grip on the problem and offer a reasonable solution. In my opinion, the students who fail should be separated from the others, regardless of whether they are retained or “socially promoted”. The truth is, social promotion is against the law, and those failing students should be held accountable for not learning the material. I admit that there are other factors which effect whether a child learns the material or not, but we are not living in a perfect world. Teachers are blamed and held accountable for every failing student and discipline problem, and its past time for this to stop. Parents and students MUST also be held accountable for a student learning the subject. Simply put, if you don’t pass the class, you should be retained and separated from other students who are on grade level. If failing students are not held accountable by way of retention, then how are they held accountable? If they are not retained, then the grading system has absolutely no integrity and should be abolished.

By TGarrett

March 29, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

I am against “social promotion”. A child that has not succcessfully mastered the basics should not be allowed to just “float” through the system because it emotionally stigmatizes them and leads to their dropping out of school later. I would rather see a child held back in the early stages of their school years than wait until they are teenagers to address their problems. I do realize that some of these students are lacking parental support/guidance as well as some of the economic advantages that other students have and though it is indeed unfortunate it still does not give way to the system allowing them to be passed from grade to grade because of these situations. Parents and the school system need to stop “enabling” our children to fail. By not ensuring they are equipped with the basics and not providing proper testing for those children that may have emotional/learning disorders the schools are sytematically crippling our children. Issues such as the lack of simple reading and math skills, socialization skills, etc. should be identified and addressed by the parents and the school system at the formative stages of a student’s school life (Pre-K, Kindergarten, 1st Grade). When these problems/issues are earmarked at their earliest conception it gives both the parents and the school a greater chance to devise and implement corrective actions that will bring these students up to par. Parents also need to realize that it is not solely the school system’s responsibility to ensure the education of their children. As parents, you have a responsibility to make sure your children are getting the education they are rightfully entitled to. You have to be proactive in their education and if there are underlying emotional/learning disorders to address you need to accept and acknowledge the problems and then make sure the school tests your children so they can get the proper attention/help they need. Parents also need to work hand-in-hand with their children’s teachers by being visible throughout the year (i.e. teacher-parent conferences, observations, etc.) - don’t wait until your child fails to show up - you have a right to request visitations/observations - utilize your rights!! Lastly, parents need to set aside a homework time and make sure their child does their work and if you ask about homework/assignments and your child consistently says they don’t have any then it’s time to make a visit to the school to see what’s going on!! Proper training begins at home and as parents, if we fail to do our parts then we cannot hold the teachers nor the school system accountable!! A parting thought for the school administration - it is not always a reflection of our teachers when students fail - it is the failure of the parents as well as the school administration for failing to identify and incorporate early detection/intervention mechanisms that would enable our teachers to work effectively with those students with problems!! Remember - the same ones you let “float” through the system may be the same ones looking down on you in the operating room with scalpel in hand!!

By Amanda

March 30, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

GC above describes the sort of kids I went through school with that were not socially promoted, at least for a time. In my 4th grade class, I had 2 boys who were the age of 7th graders. They refused to learn or do schoolwork, and spent most of their time telling the 9 year olds in my 4th grade class about sleeping with their girlfriends the night before, in great detail. They were definitely my sexual education, as well as the biggest discipline problems I have ever really encountered. After several incidents with the younger girls on the playground, someone made the decision that these boys would be sent to, I believe, 6th grade halfway through the year because they were too old to be interacting with 4th graders. 3 years later, when I was in 7th grade, I again had classes with these same boys - until they dropped out the day of their 16th birthdays. Do I think social promotion is a good idea? No. But do I think 4th graders should have to be exposed to the “issues” of 7th graders because these kids were held back? No. Don’t know what the answer is, but continually holding back children who will never show progress because of lack of motivation and discipline problems and parents who would never send their kids to school at all if it wasn’t the law doesn’t help anything.

By Mark

March 30, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

What to do when children shouldn’t be held back because of age differences? It is called “Alternative School”

That is the original alternative education concept.

By Amanda

March 31, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

I know my school system had an alternative school, but for some reason did not send these boys there. It seemed like the didn’t want to try the alternative school until high school, and by then it was too late anyway, they had already dropped out.

By Susan

April 4, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

I have a question - since the answer is to kick out the kids that don’t want to learn, what happens to the allocated yearly amount which the state/federal government gives to the school district per student. Should the district where the child no longer attends get to keep it? I think if a student no longer attends the district, either the new school district where they attend or the private school where the student goes next or a tax break given to the parents would be fair. Comments?