S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put these kids in the vocation track. Their life would be much better and have marketable skills than graduating with a worthless degree and working for $15/hr in retail or hospitality. Or even worst getting into trouble and in jail

How is that equitable?

How is it not?

It’s incredibly paternalistic.

This is the land of second chances

What 2nd chances does a kid have in education if they graduate from high school reading at a 5th grade level at best and math even worst? That’s what happens when you socially promote.

Instead encourage going vocation in electrical or plumbing and that kid can make close to 6 figures and propel himself into the middle class and out of property.

This is not a reasonable solution for the students who don't show up and are not willing to put in the work. You aren't going to get hired as a plumber or electrician or keep your job very long if you don't even bother to come in.

I agree there needs to be intensive early intervention for more children who are not mastering material in early grades. I think a lot of people see that as tracking though.

Sure those kids won’t keep jobs but there are also kids who would learn the trade and make something out of themselves.

My roommate from college and her husband are both are college educated. School was not for their older son, and he went vocational and then apprenticed as a welder. He likes it, enjoys it, and is doing well as a productive member of society.

These trades really need people and jobs are there.

We’re all aware. I’m not interested in pigeon-holing anyone into them. Kids can choose where or not to go into those professions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put these kids in the vocation track. Their life would be much better and have marketable skills than graduating with a worthless degree and working for $15/hr in retail or hospitality. Or even worst getting into trouble and in jail

How is that equitable?

How is it not?

It’s incredibly paternalistic.

This is the land of second chances

What 2nd chances does a kid have in education if they graduate from high school reading at a 5th grade level at best and math even worst? That’s what happens when you socially promote.

Instead encourage going vocation in electrical or plumbing and that kid can make close to 6 figures and propel himself into the middle class and out of property.

This is not a reasonable solution for the students who don't show up and are not willing to put in the work. You aren't going to get hired as a plumber or electrician or keep your job very long if you don't even bother to come in.

I agree there needs to be intensive early intervention for more children who are not mastering material in early grades. I think a lot of people see that as tracking though.

Sure those kids won’t keep jobs but there are also kids who would learn the trade and make something out of themselves.

My roommate from college and her husband are both are college educated. School was not for their older son, and he went vocational and then apprenticed as a welder. He likes it, enjoys it, and is doing well as a productive member of society.

These trades really need people and jobs are there.

Kids who “can’t keep jobs” won’t be able to keep trade jobs either. You contradicted yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put these kids in the vocation track. Their life would be much better and have marketable skills than graduating with a worthless degree and working for $15/hr in retail or hospitality. Or even worst getting into trouble and in jail

How is that equitable?

How is it not?

It’s incredibly paternalistic.

This is the land of second chances

What 2nd chances does a kid have in education if they graduate from high school reading at a 5th grade level at best and math even worst? That’s what happens when you socially promote.

Instead encourage going vocation in electrical or plumbing and that kid can make close to 6 figures and propel himself into the middle class and out of property.

This is not a reasonable solution for the students who don't show up and are not willing to put in the work. You aren't going to get hired as a plumber or electrician or keep your job very long if you don't even bother to come in.

I agree there needs to be intensive early intervention for more children who are not mastering material in early grades. I think a lot of people see that as tracking though.

Sure those kids won’t keep jobs but there are also kids who would learn the trade and make something out of themselves.

My roommate from college and her husband are both are college educated. School was not for their older son, and he went vocational and then apprenticed as a welder. He likes it, enjoys it, and is doing well as a productive member of society.

These trades really need people and jobs are there.

There is a reason why people would prefer sit-down, indoor jobs with the potential for WFH, and those jobs can be done until retirement age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If schools intensively intervened in first, second grades, and third grades instead of waiting for kids to fail and not learn how to read it wouldn’t cost that much compared to all the money didn’t in literacy coaches and equity coaches and programs. The most equitable thing schools can do is to teach kids to read well.

OMG this is so freaking true.

However, it is also true that school administrators make it nearly impossible to retain a student in Kindergarten.

I have a student right now who absolutely definitely positively should not move on to first grade. They simply are not developmentally ready. No amount of reading intervention is able to help (and I am very successful with reading intervention). They are VERY young -- birthday right on the cut off. But I cannot get permission to retain the child, as "research shows" retention seldom is beneficial and indeed can be harmful. I'm so frustrated.

This child's needs aren't related to age. They probably have an undiagnosed learning disability. Blaming age means nothing. I have a young for the grade child who was reading long before K. You need to get over your arrogance.

I've been teaching reading for over 25 years. This young child has been tested on phonological manipulation and awareness and is working at a PreK level. If the student had been born ONE WEEK EARLIER they would be in PreK right now instead of K and doing just fine. They are a year behind in K skills but have made some progress, i.e couldn't isolate an initial phoneme from a one syllable word, presented verbally at the start of the year, but can generally produce the initial phoneme now. Knew zero letter sounds at the start of the year but now knows 8 reliably.

Unfortunately the rest of the K students are already blending and segmenting 3 and 4 phonemes proficiently and have mastered 23+ letter sound combinations. Many are already decoding. Some aren't but they have the skills in place to do so soon.

Not every young student has difficulty with phonemic processes, of course. But if a student does, and is on the young side, retaining them a year is so much better than promoting them and letting them continue to struggle in 1st grade, only to have to refer them for a "learning disability" that would likely not even exist if they had just been retained or redshirted.

The mentality you express (that the child probably has a learning disability) is exactly the mentality we teachers are faced with when we try to retain a student but aren't allowed to and thus we must promote the student, i.e. "pass them on" when they very clearly aren't ready for the next grade level.

Please don't blame "social promotion" on teachers. We aren't allowed to retain kids. It is very very hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Put these kids in the vocation track. Their life would be much better and have marketable skills than graduating with a worthless degree and working for $15/hr in retail or hospitality. Or even worst getting into trouble and in jail

There are no worthless bachelor’s degrees. Average student debt for undergrad is low.

These kids are not graduating. If they get into college they are put in remedial classes, struggle, and have a high drop out rate. Then they default on their loans or can’t pay it all back and get hammered on their credit rating.

That’s “their” problem then. Who is “they”?

Sorry I am opposed to blocking poor kids from going to college.

No one is proposing blocking poor kids or anyone else from college. We are objecting to a system that lies to the child, his or her parents and the taxpayers by graduating people who cannot read, write or do basic math. These kids deserve for the system to stop passing them along and find actual solutions to their academic problems much earlier.

And I am sorry, there are people for whom college is not the best choice. They deserve viable vocational options, which can often outearn people with BAs. My mind goes to an immigrant teen from our church. Several of us tried to tutor him, as he was reading at the 2nd grade level in 11th grade. We desperately tried to get him into Edison for training in one of the construction trades, but MCPS wouldn't let him because his Algebra grade was too low. So, he graduated from his normal program with absolutely no academic or job skills. Tell me how that is equitable.