Anonymous
04/17/2022 10:14
Subject: Re:S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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.
Anonymous
04/17/2022 10:09
Subject: Re:S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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.
Why not have your kid do that?
I would if my kid can’t cut it in school. I’m realist not idealist that gets your kid nowhere fast. You do you.
Anonymous
04/17/2022 09:28
Subject: Re:S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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.
Anonymous
04/17/2022 08:13
Subject: Re:S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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.
We already have high schools like Edison.
Anonymous
04/17/2022 08:12
Subject: Re:S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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.
Why not have your kid do that?
Anonymous
04/16/2022 23:11
Subject: Re:S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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.
Typo proverty
Anonymous
04/16/2022 23:10
Subject: Re:S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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.
Anonymous
04/16/2022 22:08
Subject: S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
Vocation school
I might steer DC there
I might steer DC there
Anonymous
04/16/2022 22:07
Subject: Re:S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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
Anonymous
04/16/2022 22:06
Subject: Re:S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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?
Anonymous
04/16/2022 22:01
Subject: Re:S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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
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.
Social promotion isn’t just for poor kids??? Grade inflation is rampant everywhere. Look at all the white kids getting A’s in high school despite being able to write a decent essay.
The rich schools are filled with A students, unsurprisingly. The poor ones are filled with truancy.
Anonymous
04/16/2022 18:39
Subject: S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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.
Anonymous
04/16/2022 18:38
Subject: S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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.
Clearly you aren't that successful if this child isn't reading and this child needs a different approach.
But, this. We need to catch kids very early and provide them with supports and not just wait till later ES or MS. Our schools and parents failed these kids very early on. This is why waiting to start teaching kids to read later is a very bad idea.
Anonymous
04/16/2022 18:35
Subject: S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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.
We have two kindergarteners like this. One parent will refuse retention and the other student is one of the oldest in the class so retention won't be allowed. I have had students who have been retained who have gone on to do so well. If the IEP process didn't take so damn long, we'd be able to help these students a lot earlier.
Anonymous
04/16/2022 18:28
Subject: S/O for people who oppose “social promotion,” who’s going to pay for it?
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.