:^^to me, this is so backwards and short sighted. The DCPS schools you talk about are not doing a decent job meeting anyone's needs. Not the below grade students, not the above grade students and not the middle of the road students. It SHOULD NOT BE that a family must abandon public for private if the school system is not able to provide an appropriate education. Charters are finding the freedom to do this along all parts of the spectrum. Parents are choosing them for reasons that are valid and appropriate for their individual student. Why would you limit this freedom? Focus instead on petitioning dcps to get their act together to the point where families actually choose them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "need" for even having a discussion about social promotion vs. retention and pedantic pontification on either is really only talking about the symptoms, as opposed to the underlying causes, which is even more insidious, filled with fuzzy "feel-good" theories in pedagogy - which have led to a lack of firm grounding in phonics and other crucial reading skills, lack of firm grounding in math facts, things like too much group work and not enough independent mastery. Many sound teaching principles that worked for centuries have been discarded for faddish educational nonsense in the classroom.

Needless to say, I don't have much respect for academics promoting these things. "Glorified daycare?" Yes, that pretty much nails it. Complete failure where it comes to actual education.

I'm not sure I follow. Having had the opportunity to read at least a smidgen of research, what exactly is your suggestion? You don't believe in promoting them. Should we put them straight into "Juvenile Hall" or are they fit to be in school with somebody? If so, whom? You don't want them with your child, obviously. So, whose children do these undesirables belong with? How soon can we give up on them?

You've got a lot to complain about, including the research. Identifying the problem is the easy part. You're not very helpful with solutions - at least not in an honest way.

Whoa. Who said anything about juvenile hall? Slow it down there. And, where are YOUR solutions? Basically, your "solution" of social promotion is to ignore the problem altogether. Basically, the anti-retention attitude is that the child will NEVER learn the material, EVER. What exactly is so wrong with giving the child a second chance at it?

Anonymous wrote:So... here is the thing. If you are not able to teach every student- then you are not a public school. There are plenty of private schools in area that will not alter content/delivery for students. And thats OK- because they are not a PUBLIC school.
I feel that the reason parents get so uppity about their 'rigirous' charters, where they do not want below grade level kids- is that they really want a private school but cannot or won't shell out the money for it. So either find the cash- or accept ALL kids who want in. Is teaching a kid 3 years below grade leve a good time, nope. But if its good enough for the 'terrible' teachers in DCPS (which is where the kids are going once they are kicked out a charter), then it should be a no brainer for the instructional rockstars at a charter like BASIS.

That definition of "being able to teach every student" means there are no public schools in DC, to include DCPS itself. DC outsources special needs students, DC is not able to teach G&T students, DC obviously has already NOT taught the kids that it had to resort to social promotion on, has obviously already NOT taught the kid that's 3 grade levels behind.

Public charters like BASIS are open to ALL applicants, and at least some charters like BASIS are offering tutoring and other resources to try and remedy some of the problems found with incoming students, as opposed to DCPS which for all intents and purposes has for years just been sweeping it all under the rug.

So... here is the thing. If you are not able to teach every student- then you are not a public school. There are plenty of private schools in area that will not alter content/delivery for students. And thats OK- because they are not a PUBLIC school.
I feel that the reason parents get so uppity about their 'rigirous' charters, where they do not want below grade level kids- is that they really want a private school but cannot or won't shell out the money for it. So either find the cash- or accept ALL kids who want in. Is teaching a kid 3 years below grade leve a good time, nope. But if its good enough for the 'terrible' teachers in DCPS (which is where the kids are going once they are kicked out a charter), then it should be a no brainer for the instructional rockstars at a charter like BASIS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Everyone of those skills, phonics and the math skills mentioned are taught before 5th grade so if the student comes to Basis without having mastered them prior to 5th, they need remediation.

Obviously, many kids in DC are not mastering these things based on the DCAS scores and other testing. The fact that such large numbers of students are failing tells me that lousy curricula choices are being made as they frequently are all over the country. Remediation of such lack of math and reading skills should be done long before 5th grade.

Social promotion, too. So little Johnny didn't learn how to count. Oh well, promote him on. Now little Johnny doesn't learn how to add and subtract. Oh well, promote him on. Now little Johnny doesn't learn how to multiply and divide. Oh well, promote him on. And next thing, you have little Johnny in 5th grade already with virtually no math skills. It compounds from one grade to the next. It needs to be addressed and remediated FAR earlier, the schools are doing little Johnny such a major disservice.

I know you think this should be easy and obvious, but if it were, then this would not be a problem in the first place.

The research tells us that the only thing less successful than social promotion - is grade retention.

You will have to apply your clearly extensive pedagogical skills a little more "outside the box."

The research is not as conclusive as you suggest. I took a look at the literature some months ago and my impression was that most of the research focused on the impact on the retained child, and demonstrated that the outcomes for that child are about the same as they would have been under a policy of social promotion. If you consider the possibility that many of these children has severe learning disabilities, this result is perhaps not surprising.

However, I found little research on the impact of a policy of retention on the retained child's peers. I suspect that the true benefit of a retention policy accrues to the classmates of the retained child, who can move on with more advanced material without the burden of having their teacher distracted by the need to offer remedial lessons to the child who is promoted socially.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, though. Can you cite any research on the impact of retention v. social promotion on classmates?

“To retain or to promote?” is a question vexing educational professionals,
parents, and policy makers throughout the United States. During the past decade, it has been
suggested that “Perhaps no topic in public education suffers from a greater divide between the
views of researchers and the views of practitioners and the public. The existing research overwhelmingly points to negative effects of retention” (Educational Research Service, 1998, p. 1).

You didn't even try, did you. That's from the very first hit on "social promotion vs. retention in schools"

Google EDU says "Scholarly articles for social promotion vs. retention in schools
… retention and social promotion: Promoting the social … - Jimerson - Cited by 70"

http://education.ucsb.edu/jimerson/NEW%20retention/Publications/BeyondGradeRetentionandSocialPromotion2006.pdf

You didn't even read the article, did you?

Here is a relevant section:

What Long-Term Outcomes are Associated with Grade Retention?

While there are few studies examining the ef?cacy of early grade retention that extend through high school, longitudinal studies that do exist have consistently demonstrated that retained students are more likely to drop out than matched comparison groups of equally low achieving, but socially promoted, peers (Jimerson, 1999; Jimerson, Ferguson, Whipple, Anderson, & Dalton, 2002). Rumberger (1995) identi?ed grade retention as the single most powerful predictor of dropping out. A review provided by Jimerson, Anderson, and Whipple (2002) documented the consistent ?nding that students retained during elementary school are between 2 and 11 times more likely to drop out of high school than nonretained students and that overall, grade retention increases the risk of dropping out by 20 to 50%.

Grade retention also is associated with other long-term negative outcomes. One study followed children for 21 years and compared retained students, low-achieving-but-promoted students, and a control group (Jimerson, 1999). This study found that retained students had lower levels of academic adjustment (i.e., a combination of achievement, behavior, and attendance) at the end of Grade 11, were more likely to drop out of high school by age 19, were less likely to receive a diploma by age 20, were less likely to be enrolled in a postsecondary education program, received lower education/employment-status ratings, were paid less per hour, and received poorer employment-competence ratings at age 20 in comparison to a group of low-achieving students (Jimerson, 1999). In addition, noted that unlike the retained students, the low-achieving-butpromoted group was comparable to the control group on all employment outcomes at age 20. Results from other longitudinal samples have yielded similar ?ndings, suggesting poorer longterm outcomes for retained students relative to a comparison group of low-achieving-butpromoted students (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 2003; Eide & Showalter, 2001; Temple, Reynolds, & Ou, 2000).

As I noted in my post, the research on retention v. social promotion focuses on the impact of retention on the student who is retained, while apparently ignoring the impact of retention on the classmates who are promoted.

Again, I suspect that the benefits of retention accrue to the classmates who move on to advanced material the following year without the burden of having their teacher waste precious classroom time on remediation for those who did not master the material. Can you cite research that demonstrates that classmates of retained students are no better off than they would have been had those students been promoted?

Anonymous wrote:The "need" for even having a discussion about social promotion vs. retention and pedantic pontification on either is really only talking about the symptoms, as opposed to the underlying causes, which is even more insidious, filled with fuzzy "feel-good" theories in pedagogy - which have led to a lack of firm grounding in phonics and other crucial reading skills, lack of firm grounding in math facts, things like too much group work and not enough independent mastery. Many sound teaching principles that worked for centuries have been discarded for faddish educational nonsense in the classroom.

Needless to say, I don't have much respect for academics promoting these things. "Glorified daycare?" Yes, that pretty much nails it. Complete failure where it comes to actual education.

I'm not sure I follow. Having had the opportunity to read at least a smidgen of research, what exactly is your suggestion? You don't believe in promoting them. Should we put them straight into "Juvenile Hall" or are they fit to be in school with somebody? If so, whom? You don't want them with your child, obviously. So, whose children do these undesirables belong with? How soon can we give up on them?

You've got a lot to complain about, including the research. Identifying the problem is the easy part. You're not very helpful with solutions - at least not in an honest way.

Anonymous wrote:The "need" for even having a discussion about social promotion vs. retention and pedantic pontification on either is really only talking about the symptoms, as opposed to the underlying causes, which is even more insidious, filled with fuzzy "feel-good" theories in pedagogy - which have led to a lack of firm grounding in phonics and other crucial reading skills, lack of firm grounding in math facts, things like too much group work and not enough independent mastery. Many sound teaching principles that worked for centuries have been discarded for faddish educational nonsense in the classroom.

Needless to say, I don't have much respect for academics promoting these things. "Glorified daycare?" Yes, that pretty much nails it. Complete failure where it comes to actual education.

+1000,000

Look at the schools where they do not teach grammar, spelling, cursive, math facts to automaticity, extensive phonics, extensive history, long division, etc. Often, if schools do teach these things, it is only in an inadequate, cursory manner. Look at schools where they use calculators from grade 1 and onward hampering the mastering of the 4 operations or they emphasize group work and "discovery" instead of individual mastery.

The "need" for even having a discussion about social promotion vs. retention and pedantic pontification on either is really only talking about the symptoms, as opposed to the underlying causes, which is even more insidious, filled with fuzzy "feel-good" theories in pedagogy - which have led to a lack of firm grounding in phonics and other crucial reading skills, lack of firm grounding in math facts, things like too much group work and not enough independent mastery. Many sound teaching principles that worked for centuries have been discarded for faddish educational nonsense in the classroom.

Needless to say, I don't have much respect for academics promoting these things. "Glorified daycare?" Yes, that pretty much nails it. Complete failure where it comes to actual education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Everyone of those skills, phonics and the math skills mentioned are taught before 5th grade so if the student comes to Basis without having mastered them prior to 5th, they need remediation.

Obviously, many kids in DC are not mastering these things based on the DCAS scores and other testing. The fact that such large numbers of students are failing tells me that lousy curricula choices are being made as they frequently are all over the country. Remediation of such lack of math and reading skills should be done long before 5th grade.

Social promotion, too. So little Johnny didn't learn how to count. Oh well, promote him on. Now little Johnny doesn't learn how to add and subtract. Oh well, promote him on. Now little Johnny doesn't learn how to multiply and divide. Oh well, promote him on. And next thing, you have little Johnny in 5th grade already with virtually no math skills. It compounds from one grade to the next. It needs to be addressed and remediated FAR earlier, the schools are doing little Johnny such a major disservice.

I know you think this should be easy and obvious, but if it were, then this would not be a problem in the first place.

The research tells us that the only thing less successful than social promotion - is grade retention.

You will have to apply your clearly extensive pedagogical skills a little more "outside the box."

The research is not as conclusive as you suggest. I took a look at the literature some months ago and my impression was that most of the research focused on the impact on the retained child, and demonstrated that the outcomes for that child are about the same as they would have been under a policy of social promotion. If you consider the possibility that many of these children has severe learning disabilities, this result is perhaps not surprising.

However, I found little research on the impact of a policy of retention on the retained child's peers. I suspect that the true benefit of a retention policy accrues to the classmates of the retained child, who can move on with more advanced material without the burden of having their teacher distracted by the need to offer remedial lessons to the child who is promoted socially.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, though. Can you cite any research on the impact of retention v. social promotion on classmates?

“To retain or to promote?” is a question vexing educational professionals,
parents, and policy makers throughout the United States. During the past decade, it has been
suggested that “Perhaps no topic in public education suffers from a greater divide between the
views of researchers and the views of practitioners and the public. The existing research overwhelmingly points to negative effects of retention” (Educational Research Service, 1998, p. 1).

You didn't even try, did you. That's from the very first hit on "social promotion vs. retention in schools"

Google EDU says "Scholarly articles for social promotion vs. retention in schools
… retention and social promotion: Promoting the social … - Jimerson - Cited by 70"

http://education.ucsb.edu/jimerson/NEW%20retention/Publications/BeyondGradeRetentionandSocialPromotion2006.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. If there is not more to this story then what was printed in the WP (and that’s a Big If) then it shouldn’t be taboo to say/think that the school was designed at the outset to be a place for very hard working and/or advanced kids, in a race/class/sex neutral way. Why tip-toe around?

I think it's because that's pretty much the basis of the whole charter debate - instead of investing resources into neighborhood schools in order to bring these types of specialized programs to those schools, is it better to pull the resources out and just create specialized schools? When you put the resources into neighborhood schools, there's the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats; when you pull resources out and create specialized schools, it can seem like a quick fix that will help the few who are able to gain access to the school, but ultimately won't help create a stronger school system.

I put in the hours at our local school to make it work. We were successful because we had people either with money or the ability to do fundraisers for large sums of numbers. First off, a parent shouldn't have to work this hard to make a school successful. Of course parents should be involved but to the level that is required in some DC neighborhoods no.

The system is so broke and that's why charters are so important here.

Again, the problem is not money when DC spends more per pupil than any other district!!! The problem is incompetence!

The per pupil spending is a function of a) highly concentrated poverty; and b) the fact that the District has to perform the roles of both the state and local school district.

A is particularly relevant, since the diagnosis of educational disability tracks with poverty. Very often, a learning disability is a symptom of poverty. And those disabilities are usually the most disruptive.

Anyone who argues otherwise either has an agenda, or has no clue what they're talking about.

No agenda, just finding it incredibly hard to believe your argument that basically suggests low family income causes fundamental physiological changes to the brain that impair learning. I believe that for most, it's not really a learning disability at all - in a completely different environment I have little doubt those students could learn and succeed. Definitionally, that's not really a "disability". They don't lack the physiological capability for learning, they more likely lack things like supportive parents, a quiet, safe and stable home environment for studying and homework, nutritious meals and good sleep, and a supportive community that places value on learning. Those are also fundamentally cultural issues - some of which persist even outside of low-SES homes, so it's not even necessarily about income.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Everyone of those skills, phonics and the math skills mentioned are taught before 5th grade so if the student comes to Basis without having mastered them prior to 5th, they need remediation.

Obviously, many kids in DC are not mastering these things based on the DCAS scores and other testing. The fact that such large numbers of students are failing tells me that lousy curricula choices are being made as they frequently are all over the country. Remediation of such lack of math and reading skills should be done long before 5th grade.

Social promotion, too. So little Johnny didn't learn how to count. Oh well, promote him on. Now little Johnny doesn't learn how to add and subtract. Oh well, promote him on. Now little Johnny doesn't learn how to multiply and divide. Oh well, promote him on. And next thing, you have little Johnny in 5th grade already with virtually no math skills. It compounds from one grade to the next. It needs to be addressed and remediated FAR earlier, the schools are doing little Johnny such a major disservice.

I know you think this should be easy and obvious, but if it were, then this would not be a problem in the first place.

The research tells us that the only thing less successful than social promotion - is grade retention.

You will have to apply your clearly extensive pedagogical skills a little more "outside the box."

Social promotion is "successful"? Allowing kids to progress right through to graduation and come out illiterate is "success"?

Wow. No, sorry - that's no solution at all. It's nothing more than glorified babysitting. Your attempt to sound like you are making a credible discussion of pedagogy flew right out of the window.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Everyone of those skills, phonics and the math skills mentioned are taught before 5th grade so if the student comes to Basis without having mastered them prior to 5th, they need remediation.

Obviously, many kids in DC are not mastering these things based on the DCAS scores and other testing. The fact that such large numbers of students are failing tells me that lousy curricula choices are being made as they frequently are all over the country. Remediation of such lack of math and reading skills should be done long before 5th grade.

Social promotion, too. So little Johnny didn't learn how to count. Oh well, promote him on. Now little Johnny doesn't learn how to add and subtract. Oh well, promote him on. Now little Johnny doesn't learn how to multiply and divide. Oh well, promote him on. And next thing, you have little Johnny in 5th grade already with virtually no math skills. It compounds from one grade to the next. It needs to be addressed and remediated FAR earlier, the schools are doing little Johnny such a major disservice.

I know you think this should be easy and obvious, but if it were, then this would not be a problem in the first place.

The research tells us that the only thing less successful than social promotion - is grade retention.

You will have to apply your clearly extensive pedagogical skills a little more "outside the box."

The research is not as conclusive as you suggest. I took a look at the literature some months ago and my impression was that most of the research focused on the impact on the retained child, and demonstrated that the outcomes for that child are about the same as they would have been under a policy of social promotion. If you consider the possibility that many of these children has severe learning disabilities, this result is perhaps not surprising.

However, I found little research on the impact of a policy of retention on the retained child's peers. I suspect that the true benefit of a retention policy accrues to the classmates of the retained child, who can move on with more advanced material without the burden of having their teacher distracted by the need to offer remedial lessons to the child who is promoted socially.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, though. Can you cite any research on the impact of retention v. social promotion on classmates?

Anonymous wrote:Thanks 1053, you are correct.

But if BASIS, like Latin, can attract a cohort that is low poverty, they will declare success. Funny that.

They already attract low poverty but haven't mastered retaining them until graduation. Same as every other DCPS and charter middle - high schools.

Let's see if BASIS can.

The DCI consortium is trying it by creating a preschool - high school that will mainly serve the kids who started at these schools at 3-4 yrs old.

Anonymous wrote: Yet, DC spends an extra $10,000 per student for poor students in DCPS, than it does for poor students in charter schools, and for consistently lesser results. A lot of us have a clue about that, it's in the paper(s) on a regular basis. (No pun intended.)

And only a few charters (with similar SES populations) get dramatically better results; and even that said, given the nature of self-selection, it's difficult to compare the populations beyond saying they have similar income levels. Anyway, we can keep spotlighting these schools until the world ends, but until someone comes up with a way to make this work beyond a few schools (and not just opening and closing schools one by one, hoping that eventually we have a whole system of high-flyers), it's pointless.

It's not poverty, it's culture. The parents who won't bother seeing to it that their kid gets to free math or reading tutoring seem to have no problem getting their kids to football or other activities. They put what they and their kids WANT ahead of what their kids NEED.