A new idea for middle schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, as it stands now it is illegal to flunk students who are not in 3rd, 5th, or 8th grade in DCPS from what I recall and then DCPS can only hold them back once I believe cantania is proposing ending social promotion which I am in favor of. Struggling students need intensive remediation which cannot be done in a normal classroom in most cases.

I agree that 9th grade is too late to identify struggling students. it is shameful that DCPS socially promotes children on to ultimate failure. These children need help and not social promotion.

The problem that no-one here is acknowledging, is that the only option with worse outcomes than social promotion, is holding kids back. Obviously they need remediation, and obviously it should be identified before 9th grade, but according to the research holding kids back beyond 2nd grade has worse results than social promotion.

Yes, it sounds like a simple solution, implement it and problem solved, but it's not that simple after all.

I do not buy it that social promotion is better since DC has a drop out rate of about 40% and then how many of the so-called graduates from DCPS graduate essentially illiterate and unable to do basic math??? You call that a good outcome???

Obviously I am all for early identification and remediation, in separate classrooms when needed, of struggling students. I am also for mandatory summer school for struggling students as well and Saturday school and tutoring as well. I do think that keeping students behind a grade should be a part of the tool box as well when all of these other measures are tried as well.

It's not a matter of "buying" anything. Research has demonstrated over and over again, that students who are held back after 2nd grade, are more likely to drop out, and are less likely to leave skills with functional literacy and math. It simply doesn't work.

Suggesting that the school system address a problem by adopting something that has been demonstrated, over and over again, to CAUSE the problem is like saying "Lung cancer is a huge problem. We have to do something. Let's go out and increase smoking rates, maybe we could teach classes about how to smoke in the elementary schools".

Social promotion and holding kids back are BOTH terrible. They need to begin remedial tutoring programs or actually teach remedial classes. I think DCPS needs to get their act together. I think they need to fund teachers/programs and stop jerking the public around with ever shifting agendas/chancellors.

I'm the PP with the lung cancer analogy and I agree 100%. DCPS needs to build robust response to intervention programs that use research based methods to meet kids where they are and move their skills. However, for kids between 2nd and 8th grade, they need to do this while keeping kids in their assigned grade levels, making research based decisions for when students should be integrated in heterogeneous groupings, and when kids benefit from small group supplementary or replacement instruction.

[Anonymous]

I think elementary students will make a concerted effort to pass if they know that they will be held back otherwise (a stigma to avoid). It's a very powerful incentive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think elementary students will make a concerted effort to pass if they know that they will be held back otherwise (a stigma to avoid). It's a very powerful incentive.

Average elementary school students are not generally able to hold a goal in mind for 12 months and organize around it. Kids with serious academic delays often have difficulties in other areas that make it even harder for them to do this.

Similarly, once held back, the majority of elementary and middle schoolers will work less hard than they did the previous year, not harder.

[Anonymous]

Why not think outside the box? What we should probably think about is getting rid of grades 1-12, keep students together in the same age levels, elementary/middle/and high school, grouping students according to their mastery level in a particular subject. When they master a specific level, they go onto the next. Maybe this can be done with blended learning.

We can require students to complete at least 10 years of school. Students who only achieve at certain levels could then choose to pursue a vocational program or apprenticeship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, as it stands now it is illegal to flunk students who are not in 3rd, 5th, or 8th grade in DCPS from what I recall and then DCPS can only hold them back once I believe cantania is proposing ending social promotion which I am in favor of. Struggling students need intensive remediation which cannot be done in a normal classroom in most cases.

I agree that 9th grade is too late to identify struggling students. it is shameful that DCPS socially promotes children on to ultimate failure. These children need help and not social promotion.

The problem that no-one here is acknowledging, is that the only option with worse outcomes than social promotion, is holding kids back. Obviously they need remediation, and obviously it should be identified before 9th grade, but according to the research holding kids back beyond 2nd grade has worse results than social promotion.

Yes, it sounds like a simple solution, implement it and problem solved, but it's not that simple after all.

I do not buy it that social promotion is better since DC has a drop out rate of about 40% and then how many of the so-called graduates from DCPS graduate essentially illiterate and unable to do basic math??? You call that a good outcome???

Obviously I am all for early identification and remediation, in separate classrooms when needed, of struggling students. I am also for mandatory summer school for struggling students as well and Saturday school and tutoring as well. I do think that keeping students behind a grade should be a part of the tool box as well when all of these other measures are tried as well.

It's not a matter of "buying" anything. Research has demonstrated over and over again, that students who are held back after 2nd grade, are more likely to drop out, and are less likely to leave skills with functional literacy and math. It simply doesn't work.

Suggesting that the school system address a problem by adopting something that has been demonstrated, over and over again, to CAUSE the problem is like saying "Lung cancer is a huge problem. We have to do something. Let's go out and increase smoking rates, maybe we could teach classes about how to smoke in the elementary schools".

I think cause and effect are being confused. I'd wager that those who dropped out after being held back after 2nd grade would have dropped out regardless of being held back or not. Also not addressed by that statement is what was done when they were held back... if they were simply subjected to another round of the exact same teaching methods and approach that didn't work the first time around, it's not likely that it would have worked the second time either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, as it stands now it is illegal to flunk students who are not in 3rd, 5th, or 8th grade in DCPS from what I recall and then DCPS can only hold them back once I believe cantania is proposing ending social promotion which I am in favor of. Struggling students need intensive remediation which cannot be done in a normal classroom in most cases.

I agree that 9th grade is too late to identify struggling students. it is shameful that DCPS socially promotes children on to ultimate failure. These children need help and not social promotion.

The problem that no-one here is acknowledging, is that the only option with worse outcomes than social promotion, is holding kids back. Obviously they need remediation, and obviously it should be identified before 9th grade, but according to the research holding kids back beyond 2nd grade has worse results than social promotion.

Yes, it sounds like a simple solution, implement it and problem solved, but it's not that simple after all.

I do not buy it that social promotion is better since DC has a drop out rate of about 40% and then how many of the so-called graduates from DCPS graduate essentially illiterate and unable to do basic math??? You call that a good outcome???

Obviously I am all for early identification and remediation, in separate classrooms when needed, of struggling students. I am also for mandatory summer school for struggling students as well and Saturday school and tutoring as well. I do think that keeping students behind a grade should be a part of the tool box as well when all of these other measures are tried as well.

It's not a matter of "buying" anything. Research has demonstrated over and over again, that students who are held back after 2nd grade, are more likely to drop out, and are less likely to leave skills with functional literacy and math. It simply doesn't work.

Suggesting that the school system address a problem by adopting something that has been demonstrated, over and over again, to CAUSE the problem is like saying "Lung cancer is a huge problem. We have to do something. Let's go out and increase smoking rates, maybe we could teach classes about how to smoke in the elementary schools".

I think cause and effect are being confused. I'd wager that those who dropped out after being held back after 2nd grade would have dropped out regardless of being held back or not. Also not addressed by that statement is what was done when they were held back... if they were simply subjected to another round of the exact same teaching methods and approach that didn't work the first time around, it's not likely that it would have worked the second time either.

Actually, educational researchers are more capable than giving them credit. This is an issue that has been looked at from many different angles. For example, you can control for student academic levels, you can compare groups of students from different cohorts who are subjected to different retention policies (e.g. looking at drop out rates X number of years after a school or school system implements policies that change the number of 3rd graders retained. etc . . . However you slice it the pattern remains. Retaining an elementary school student increases the likelihood of negative outcomes for a 2nd to 8th grader relative to the likelihood of negative outcomes for that same student (with the same background, academic skills, parental involvement, etc . . . ) if passed on to the next grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, as it stands now it is illegal to flunk students who are not in 3rd, 5th, or 8th grade in DCPS from what I recall and then DCPS can only hold them back once I believe cantania is proposing ending social promotion which I am in favor of. Struggling students need intensive remediation which cannot be done in a normal classroom in most cases.

I agree that 9th grade is too late to identify struggling students. it is shameful that DCPS socially promotes children on to ultimate failure. These children need help and not social promotion.

don't think it's law, it's DCPS policy

Read the article I posted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, as it stands now it is illegal to flunk students who are not in 3rd, 5th, or 8th grade in DCPS from what I recall and then DCPS can only hold them back once I believe cantania is proposing ending social promotion which I am in favor of. Struggling students need intensive remediation which cannot be done in a normal classroom in most cases.

I agree that 9th grade is too late to identify struggling students. it is shameful that DCPS socially promotes children on to ultimate failure. These children need help and not social promotion.

The problem that no-one here is acknowledging, is that the only option with worse outcomes than social promotion, is holding kids back. Obviously they need remediation, and obviously it should be identified before 9th grade, but according to the research holding kids back beyond 2nd grade has worse results than social promotion.

Yes, it sounds like a simple solution, implement it and problem solved, but it's not that simple after all.

I do not buy it that social promotion is better since DC has a drop out rate of about 40% and then how many of the so-called graduates from DCPS graduate essentially illiterate and unable to do basic math??? You call that a good outcome???

Obviously I am all for early identification and remediation, in separate classrooms when needed, of struggling students. I am also for mandatory summer school for struggling students as well and Saturday school and tutoring as well. I do think that keeping students behind a grade should be a part of the tool box as well when all of these other measures are tried as well.

It's not a matter of "buying" anything. Research has demonstrated over and over again, that students who are held back after 2nd grade, are more likely to drop out, and are less likely to leave skills with functional literacy and math. It simply doesn't work.

Suggesting that the school system address a problem by adopting something that has been demonstrated, over and over again, to CAUSE the problem is like saying "Lung cancer is a huge problem. We have to do something. Let's go out and increase smoking rates, maybe we could teach classes about how to smoke in the elementary schools".

The research on retention v. promotion has focused primarily -- if not exclusively -- on the outcomes for the students who are retained. The benefits for the classmates of retained students has received very little -- if any -- attention in the literature.

Catania is not overly concerned about the potentially retained students. He's worried about the students who have earned their promotions but are forced to learn in classrooms with a large number of socially promoted peers:

Catania, who has been visiting public schools as part of his duties as the head of the council’s new education committee, said a common complaint from teachers and administrators centers on the difficulties involved in having — and trying to reach — so many children in one class who are on so many different levels.

Providing differentiated instruction is very challenging, and the students who are behind receive a disproportionate amount of the teacher's attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are builidng schools with smaller capacities... if we are not careful we could have a school with more repeaters than actual current students.

I was under the impression that DCPS policy explicitly favors larger schools. Don't they have to be of a certain size to qualify for even such "extras" as a librarian? Or art teacher?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think elementary students will make a concerted effort to pass if they know that they will be held back otherwise (a stigma to avoid). It's a very powerful incentive.

And some people think the earth is flat. You can think whatever you want, but in this case it's still wrong. The research and empirical evidence demonstrate indisputably that holding kids back makes the problem worse. In order to avoid the stigma, they won't "make a concerted effort to pass" they will decrease their investment in an unrewarding activity. And they'll drop out even sooner.

Just because a child isn't succeeding in school doesn't mean they don't want to learn. The compound effects of falling further and further behind, not to mention the many undiagnosed learning disabilities are at work here. You may find it satisfying to "punish" them or threaten the "stick" (vs. carrot) approach, but it does not work.

The only thing worse than social promotion is holding kids back.

[Anonymous]

Pp: you are probably correct that the research shows social promotion WITH PROPER REMEDIATION is in the best interest of the struggling student.

However, as with many issues, DCPS does not show itself as capable of providing the proper remediation ( abundant evidence ) so this makes the research null and void in this context. If you take out major factor that makes social promotion work ( good teaching ) then you get a major mess when you implement it here. Not good for anyone.

So when I see this 9th grade academy idea, and it seems to be good for the students all around, it makes me think that in the DC context of barely functioning schools, it may be we need more of it. Despite what research in ideal circumstances says.

[Anonymous]

The building are larger and campuses more spread out but the capacities of the schools are smaller. Right now, a large high school is considered 1000 students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, as it stands now it is illegal to flunk students who are not in 3rd, 5th, or 8th grade in DCPS from what I recall and then DCPS can only hold them back once I believe cantania is proposing ending social promotion which I am in favor of. Struggling students need intensive remediation which cannot be done in a normal classroom in most cases.

I agree that 9th grade is too late to identify struggling students. it is shameful that DCPS socially promotes children on to ultimate failure. These children need help and not social promotion.

The problem that no-one here is acknowledging, is that the only option with worse outcomes than social promotion, is holding kids back. Obviously they need remediation, and obviously it should be identified before 9th grade, but according to the research holding kids back beyond 2nd grade has worse results than social promotion.

Yes, it sounds like a simple solution, implement it and problem solved, but it's not that simple after all.

I do not buy it that social promotion is better since DC has a drop out rate of about 40% and then how many of the so-called graduates from DCPS graduate essentially illiterate and unable to do basic math??? You call that a good outcome???

Obviously I am all for early identification and remediation, in separate classrooms when needed, of struggling students. I am also for mandatory summer school for struggling students as well and Saturday school and tutoring as well. I do think that keeping students behind a grade should be a part of the tool box as well when all of these other measures are tried as well.

It's not a matter of "buying" anything. Research has demonstrated over and over again, that students who are held back after 2nd grade, are more likely to drop out, and are less likely to leave skills with functional literacy and math. It simply doesn't work.

Suggesting that the school system address a problem by adopting something that has been demonstrated, over and over again, to CAUSE the problem is like saying "Lung cancer is a huge problem. We have to do something. Let's go out and increase smoking rates, maybe we could teach classes about how to smoke in the elementary schools".

I think cause and effect are being confused. I'd wager that those who dropped out after being held back after 2nd grade would have dropped out regardless of being held back or not. Also not addressed by that statement is what was done when they were held back... if they were simply subjected to another round of the exact same teaching methods and approach that didn't work the first time around, it's not likely that it would have worked the second time either.

Actually, educational researchers are more capable than giving them credit. This is an issue that has been looked at from many different angles. For example, you can control for student academic levels, you can compare groups of students from different cohorts who are subjected to different retention policies (e.g. looking at drop out rates X number of years after a school or school system implements policies that change the number of 3rd graders retained. etc . . . However you slice it the pattern remains. Retaining an elementary school student increases the likelihood of negative outcomes for a 2nd to 8th grader relative to the likelihood of negative outcomes for that same student (with the same background, academic skills, parental involvement, etc . . . ) if passed on to the next grade.

How can one actually have objective apples-to-apples comparisons? I suspect it's anecdotal and piecemeal information as opposed to an objective study. And no, I don't particularly have a great deal of faith in educational researchers given the many hare-brained and counterproductive things that have come out of the educational community in the last several decades. Schools with different retention policies may well also have different demographics and socioeconomics, different levels of academic robustness, differing means of assessing students, different levels of grade inflation and many other things - has there actually been a study within the SAME school and SAME demographic mix where multiple cohorts eligible for retention were separated into groups via random selection, where some were retained and some were not, and with a subsequent longitudinal study of how they did? And additionally, did anyone actually look at how the group retained was dealt with? Were they just taught using the same approach and method that failed the first time around or did they do anything different? You really didn't answer any of my questions other than to just suggest "oh, have faith in educational researchers." Can't have faith in them without knowing the details.