retention

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Trending Topics

Pass or Fail: Supporting Teachers to Enhance Educational Value

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

How do we support teachers to help them achieve the level of competency required in America today? Are we doing enough to support what we expect them to accomplish?

As part of the third-year evaluation activities, one study asked a group of lead teachers to indicate what they valued most in the ORSI effort to enhance teacher experiences and provide supports.

According to the results, teachers most valued informative professional development that they could take back and incorporate into their classrooms. They also reported valuing the experience of being treated like professionals because it helped them to change practices in classrooms when improvements were needed. The study also indicated that teachers valued being part of a network, being able to share information with other professionals to discuss practices that could improve student learning.

When forced to accept a new curriculum and make difficult changes in instructional approach, teachers most valued having access to support groups and workshops on the aspects of effectively teaching new material, especially math and science topics. Listening to nationally recognized trainers were also said to make a positive difference when it was necessary to adopt a new curriculum and make difficult changes in approach.

In other words, teachers value support from the institution of education itself. They also value the opportunity to be exposed to information on best practices for teaching and for information about curricula and standards. Allowing teachers to understand why the system expects them to teach certain knowledge and skills helps them to be more effective at their jobs.

Strategies such as providing regional networking and direct assistance to schools also helped remove the isolation and access issues for teachers looking to acquire new skills. Access to information, including hands-on materials, information on teaching strategies about advanced content, and opportunities to work with other teachers on the same grade level emerged as important support strategies. Teachers also value the administrative support of principals and superintendents who can pass along useful, research-based information.

According to the ORSI, most school administrators strongly supported requests of teachers to attend regional trainings that promise to improve skills in raising student achievement in math and science. One third-grade teacher reported that “ORSI professional development targets specifically the programs we use, and recommends practices for teaching more effectively within those programs.”A fifth-grade teacher indicated that “professional development opportunities now are convenient and well-publicized within our school. We are now encouraged to attend professional development.”

Adequate supports like these help ensure that teachers are consistently able to set students at the center of instruction, helping teachers to guide students and implement practices that enhance and fine-tune the teaching of the individual child instead of the class. Entire districts can benefit when school and district leaders allow teachers to examine curricula and learn new teaching practices by networking with their colleagues.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Classroom Management, K-12, Parental Involvement, Teachers

Attribution Errors in America’s Classrooms

Cause and effect aren’t always clearly and correctly paired in America’s classrooms.

Teachers don’t always have the time, energy, or awareness to properly attribute underperformance.

  • Is a disengaged student sleeping at his or her desk being lazy or suffering from lack of sleep?
  • Is disruptive behavior the reflection of student boredom or a cover for not understanding the material?
  • Is a sudden drop in academic performance really indicative of intelligence or simply a need for reading glasses?
  • Are poor test scores more a reflection on the teacher’s failings or a lack of support and encouragement for students at home?

Fundamental Attribution Error: School Edition

The gap of understanding in the classroom can be compared to how road rage incidents get escalated.

Suppose you fail to notice a light turning green at an intersection. You might explain your negligence in any number of ways — you were caught up in a song playing on the radio, you were monitoring the progress of a pedestrian nearby, you were investigating the car behind you via rearview mirror — all of which emphasize external factors, rather than individual failings.

Now suppose you were behind a car that wasn’t moving after the light turned green. Same situation, same outcome, but many people would instinctively blame that driver in more intrinsic ways — the driver was being stupid, careless, selfish, etc.

This is the essence of fundamental attribution error: we look outside ourselves to explain behavior, but focus on internal factors to explain the behavior of others.

We see a similarly challenged dynamic in dating and romantic relationships. In the absence of good communication, each member of a couple is prone to developing his or her own narrative to explain behaviors, perceived emotions, and even the successes and failures of a couple. When he comes home at night, is he being dismissive and distant because something is wrong with the relationship, or simply because he hasn’t stopped worrying about a bad day at work? Is she struggling to come up with a diner destination because she doesn’t know what she wants, or is she being purposefully passive-aggressive?

When applied to academic settings, the same fallacy is apparent. Both students and teachers are accused of not caring enough to try harder or perform better. A national preoccupation with educational outcomes — the effect we look for from our schools — has exacerbated a lack of understanding about the inputs, or causes.

Looking Upstream in Education

It is human nature to look for patterns; in the absence of clear, verifiable patterns, it is also human nature to invent patterns even in spite of evidence. In sports, for example, this can manifest as superstition:

  • don’t shave during Stanley Cup Playoffs
  • don’t wash your team jersey until the season is over
  • don’t curse a pitcher by saying he is on track to throw a perfect game, etc.

The outcome — surviving playoffs, having a good season, pitching a perfect game — clearly has no measurable or meaningful connection to the behaviors extolled, but the belief in their significance continues undeterred. In social contexts, a similar fallacy prevents us from correctly attributing effects to their causes. In education, it is possible we have focused on desired outcomes that fail to account for the power of confounding variables.

The variables of student life today are too many to count: from home life, social life, and social media, to the quality of instruction, the presence of role models, and even the medium of instruction and assessment, there are a lot of variables getting in the way of assigning cause and effect.

To move beyond fundamental attribution error, or falling into the old habit of superstition, it is important to spend more time and energy looking upstream for the real causes that need our attention. Going upstream is a principle of public health in which caregivers go beyond treating symptoms and instead look for opportunities to prevent sickness and injury. Businesses engaged in corporate social responsibility and other forms of social entrepreneurship take a similar approach: throwing money at a problem or social ill no longer impresses consumers or shareholders. Looking upstream for opportunities to meaningfully impact communities and benefit the world not only makes for a better story, it makes for more lasting forms of giving.

Both of these examples apply in education as well. By going upstream to understand what drives student performance, classroom behavior, and any other outcomes we care to monitor, we can better connect cause and effect and control for other variables. Going upstream in education isn’t just a matter of more spending or more resources, but of aiding teachers, administrators, and the general public to focus on what really drives outcomes.

When we stop focusing on outcomes to the exclusion of understanding inputs, we create a machine for using money and resources without generating improved results. When we go upstream to identify the real cause and effect relationship surrounding school, we can put our resources where they will have the greatest benefit.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Trending Topics

Pass or Fail: Effective Teachers Instead of Retention and Social Promotion

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

What if the tools to eliminate retention and social promotion already exist in our classrooms?

What if all we need are more effective teachers?

Given their centrality to the student’s learning experience and to the management of education as a whole, it’s obvious why effective teachers form the most important alternative to retention and social promotion policies. With qualified, competent teachers, most students exhibiting learning difficulties should nonetheless be able to achieve enough academic progress to warrant advancement to the next grade. Indeed, what this conclusion might indicate is that there should be some internal streaming within grades of the American education system.

Students struggling with literacy or math skills could be streamed into a specific classroom either for a specific grade or for the teaching of a specific subject. The focus of the teaching could be to address the specific challenges experienced by the individual learner, to essentially teach to the student, to interpret standards and expectations for the particular student, and to play to their strengths and target their weaker areas for development.

According to Bellanca, the most successful attempts to teach for intelligence entail several basic assumptions. First, teachers must acknowledge that traditional methods for teaching are not always wrong. There are, Bellanca suggests, many high-achieving students who thrive under the traditional approach to teaching and many typical students or low-achieving students who can improve under a more traditional teaching focus. The key is that traditional methods are inadequate for many students who are less achievement-driven.

Because all students are expected to learn a specific curriculum, it is important that all students have the opportunity to be taught in a manner that enriches their learning. This applies to high achievers as well as to those who struggle academically. When faced with a less motivated student, however, a teacher must be able to develop a strategy to target their specific needs. Individual teachers must have a greater repertoire of methods.

More than this, best teaching practices should concentrate on building new theories of intelligence. Teachers should be familiar with new theories of intelligence and be able to build on them in their teaching practices. We do not have the space in this volume to elaborate on specific theories, but it is appropriate to mention Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, Robert Sternberg’s theory of successful intelligence, Daniel Goleman’s theory of emotional intelligence, and Reuven Feuerstein’s theory of structural cognitive modifiability.

The second point is that the public education system should encourage teachers to regard the process of teaching as a strategic act of engagement, consistent with new theories of intelligence that identify active engagement of students’ minds as a prerequisite for learning. Indeed, teachers have support to apply planning as a means of facilitating the effective application of proven engagement strategies. By regarding teaching as a strategic act, teachers can go about the designing lessons and units that integrate a variety of strategies with targeted content so that each student understands the required knowledge and develops the required skills.

Third, teachers have to understand that it takes more than a review of theoretical information to change teaching practices. Continuing education for teachers is crucial but it must include more than theoretical discussions. There must be some effort for teachers to learn to apply new teaching strategies in the classroom, with guidance to ensure that best practices are actually achieved. In other words, the education system should develop scenarios for teachers to receive regular practical training in addition to theory-based continuing education instruction.

Finally, teachers must also be aware that changing their teaching style or otherwise enhancing it is also going to require, in most instances, that students make changes in their own learning styles. Indeed, when teachers encounter students who are struggling academically, the need to change learning styles may be very immediate. It should, however, be recognized that changing learning styles can be extremely challenging for students. Especially when teachers are making changes to their teaching, it is important for them to be aware that the change process has equally significant ramifications on the student’s side of the desk.

Beginning from an abstract, theoretical point of view and using that to construct a framework or big picture may work in some classroom scenarios. On the other hand, starting with a hands-on classroom test of a new method may be the best approach, and will allow students to be involved in the subsequent evaluation.

As alternatives to retention and social promotion, effective teachers function as the most immediate tools available to the education system in terms of identifying at-risk students and applying all that is known about education and teaching strategies and the capacity to adjust teaching models and the like. This could help at-risk students to master the knowledge and skills needed for them to be able to successfully meet standards for graduation. Like any tool, however, teachers need effective handling as well. They need to receive regular training updates, access to research information, and access to networking opportunities.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Trending Topics

Pass or Fail: Is Testing a Valid Way to Measure Student Progress?

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

What if the measures we use to determine passing or failing grades are completely skewed? Is standardized testing, or any testing for that matter, the right way to determine student progress?

For obvious reasons, one of the first and most significant concerns for the application of standardized tests is that they are not consistent with the standards for fair and appropriate testing. Of course, educators must first define the standards themselves, and demonstrate them to be relevant. In this instance, we are referring to the standards for fair and appropriate testing as defined by the NRC Report, which says that measurement validity refers to the extent to which evidence supports a proposed interpretation and use of test scores for a particular purpose.

For instance, a measurement validity of the reading section of the SAT I standard test would be assessed to have a reasonable validity for assessment of an individual’s reading comprehension skills, knowledge of grammar rules, and ability to make inferences from texts. The use of scores from this test to determine an individual’s preparedness for entry into a particular college program would also be reasonably good. The component of appropriate testing usually overlaps with this second issue of validity, too, which the NRC Report Standards also outlines, and which is backed up by the findings of various other organizations.

To go back to the more formal parameters, the general rule is that the internal structure of the test, the content of the test, the relationship of the test to other criteria, and the psychological processes and cognitive operations used by the examinee in responding to the test items must all support the purpose of the test.

A test assessing knowledge and skill should target the knowledge and skills specifically; looking, as well, to ensure that the knowledge and skills being assessed are those that have been obtained from appropriate instruction. In some instances, knowledge might depend on poor instruction or on factors that are unrelated to the skills under review. For instance, a student might score poorly on the SAT reading test because their teachers didn’t transfer the necessary knowledge and skill (the students may not have received the targeted knowledge of proper grammar, for instance, or they have received inadequate instruction on how to read critically).

Another example would be that an individual might score badly on the SAT reading test not because they lack reading comprehension skills that the test intends to assess but because they have significant language barriers or because there are cultural differences that have some bearing on the test. For instance, a passage in American history that is being read for comprehension but that in some way relies upon presupposed knowledge of American history or customs might be problematic and undermine the validity and fairness of tests scores, undermining the attribution of cause.

Disabilities can also factor as an issue for the attribution of cause. Several types of cognitive or even physical disabilities can undermine an individual’s performance in a testing scenario without appropriate interventions provided to support the student’s exceptionalities.

In the context of K-12 assessments, the cause component also influences the extent to which students receive adequate opportunity to learn the material for the test. Adequate quality and quantity of instruction become important, as does the alignment of test content and curriculum.

Students need adequate opportunity within the testing scenarios to demonstrate their knowledge. If tests contain irrelevant language or content, for instance, students may not have adequate opportunity to perform and test developers will have compromised the fairness and relevance of the test.

Furthermore, many of the criteria for fairness in testing standards overlap with attribution of cause. In the Standards, overlapping elements include the investigation of bias and differential item functioning, determining whether construct-irrelevant variance differentially affects different groups of examinees, and equal treatment during the testing process.

Circular validity lies within the cause component in the sense that it relates to the alignment between test content and the curriculum taught in class. Chapter 13 of the Standards determines that “There should be evidence that the test adequately covers only the specific or generalized content and skills that students have had an opportunity to learn.”

This goes beyond the criteria outlined here and applies to a broader interpretation of opportunity to learn; one that is not restricted to curricular validity but also inclusive of the consideration of instructional quality as a predictor of student test scores.

Certain polices within the K-12 setting make high-stakes student decisions dependent upon evidence that the student has the educational experience and opportunity to acquire relevant knowledge and skill. Where students have lacked sufficient opportunity to acquire desired skills in an educational context, they may not meet the criteria for grade promotion or graduation.

At the same time, though, it is hardly fair that the student be held accountable for the deficit in their learning. At what point do we say: this portion of education is the responsibility of the schools, of the system and the stakeholders, not just the individual student?

The effectiveness of treatment is the final component of the fair and appropriate test criteria, relating to whether test scores lead to consequences that are educationally beneficial in a given context. Consequences could include placement in a particular academic grouping based on ability or advancement from one level of learning to a higher level based on test achievement. Accountability plays a part here, too, as the criteria for effective treatment determines that it is inappropriate to use tests to make placements that are not educationally beneficial.

When tests are used in placement decisions, they must be fair and appropriate. Students must be “better off in the setting in which they are placed than they would be in a different available setting.” With all of these factors in mind, though, can testing ever truly be trusted as a placement option for students?

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Retention & Social Promotion Series, Trending Topics

Pass or Fail: Teacher Effectiveness as Prevention

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

Retaining or socially promoting a student takes a simplistic approach to education that is outdated and harmful. Finding alternatives to avoid both is imperative and entirely possible in today’s educational climate. Perhaps the most influential alternative to social promotion and retention is effective teaching and teachers who are willing to go the extra mile to make sure students are up to speed.

Some teachers may need professional development to help them diversify their approach to meet the instructional needs of lower performing students. Protheroe points to examples like the Metro Nashville Public Schools, who have established a comprehensive program for professional development, supporting veteran and, especially, new teachers who serve in high-poverty areas. The program includes work on the so-called Ruby Payne Framework to improve teacher understanding of poverty. There is also, according to Holt and Garcia, some important training with differentiated instruction and the Dignity with Discipline program.

Buena Vista Elementary, which is under the Metro Nashville umbrella, is a striking example of the success of these types of involvements. The school is just a few miles from downtown Nashville, in an area plagued by poverty and underdevelopment. A third of the students are homeless and live in one of the numerous shelters nearby. Violence is common, and almost all of the students receive free or reduced-fee lunches.

Despite the inherent difficulties of running a school in such a disadvantaged area, Buena Vista is a vibrant and thriving environment. Every student has a netbook, and there is an iPad for every two students. There are two teachers for every classroom (one is usually a student teacher on a paid placement), as well as a highly qualified phalanx of support staff on call.

The principal, Michelle McVicker, is focused on raising the students’ math and language arts skills. She ensures that each student has a goal and knows what he or she is working toward. “You should be able to ask any student what his or her math and reading goals are and get an answer,” she says and demonstrates that she means it by pulling a student out of a classroom and eliciting the answers.

In the “War Room,” every student’s goal, as well as their current data status, is captured and posted on a wall, with color charts indicating which ones are still in need of help, from blue (advanced), through green (proficient) and yellow (basic), to below basic (red). Two years ago, Buena Vista was considered a failing school. Nearly every card was in the red zone.

McVicker was hired and given free rein to acquire the tools she needed to get the school out of the red. Some of these were technological – as well as computers, classes use Smart Boards and projectors – but she also hired a fresh crew of teachers, commenting: “Because my teachers are all new, they have no bad habits to break.”

The majority of the cards in the War Room are now in the green and yellow zone. The turnaround is well under way.

Protheroe discusses changes to grouping practices and considers how some schools have moved toward increased use of multiage classrooms, with students of different ages grouped together in the classroom to enable continuous progress rather than have to worry about promotion year to year. Specific strategies include interventions to accelerate learning, such as strategies to help students “double-dose” in reading and math instruction to address the problem associated with providing remediation.

Protheroe suggests identifying struggling students and focusing attention on them early, doing whatever can be done to extend learning time, and taking a student’s socio-economic status into consideration when working with them. Beyond these measures, Protheroe also identifies extended learning time as an alternative to retention. Roderick, Engel, and Nagaoka reference the comprehensive evaluation conducted at Chicago Public Schools via the Summer Bridge program. This program found that test scores improved among third, sixth, and eighth graders.

The largest gains were among the sixth and eighth graders. A total of ninety hours of instruction were offered at summer school for third through sixth graders: three hours per day for six weeks. Eighth graders received 140 hours of instruction, attending four hours per day for seven weeks. Evaluations also identified several factors that were associated with larger gains, such as assigning students to teachers who had worked with them before. Teachers reported being more likely to adapt the curriculum to meet the needs of the individual student since they were better informed of those needs.

Researchers studying this and other similar afterschool programs have determined that such systems for additional instruction tend to be more successful when there is a careful assessment of the individual student needs and designing of instruction to address those needs. Afterschool and regular day teachers were better able to support students when they communicated with each other about progress and problems.

At the same time, it is also important that the staff at afterschool programs have the knowledge to apply instructional strategies that support the student’s work efforts. Poggi notes that special professional development may well be required to provide this level of knowledge and skill to staff.

Interventions to accelerate learning are catalyzed by efforts to increase the effectiveness of teachers and extend learning time. Ultimately, a combination of these efforts proves most successful as a retention or social promotion alternative.

Click here to read all my suggestions for alternatives to social promotion and retention.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Retention & Social Promotion Series, Trending Topics

Pass or Fail: How to Choose an Alternative Strategy to Social Promotion and Retention

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

Research shows us that social promotion isn’t effective and ultimately hurts the student long-term. We know retention can do a lot of damage, too. So what, then, is the answer? The answer is nuanced and based on individual factors.

Factors for choosing an alternative strategy to retention or social promotion include all of the resources available to students and other stakeholders in their education. These stakeholders include teachers, school administrators, school counselors, parents or guardians. The social factors impacting students include emotional challenges, the strength and stability of the student’s family dynamic, and the level of the individual student’s motivation towards academic success.

Each of these factors plays an important role in determining the type of strategy that may help a student improve his or her academic performance. A child with specific learning abilities may benefit from having access to specific learning resources. Similarly, parents may benefit from having information on resources made available to them, as may children who struggle academically due to social or economic disadvantages.

In some respects, the need for alternative support strategies is as much about establishing a better process for identifying and analyzing the needs of struggling students as it is about finding alternative strategies to facilitate academic success. The Education Trust, for example, has identified key differences in the ways in which schools with “high” and “average” impact on the progress of struggling students used assessment data. The research demonstrated the advantage of using analytical data.

It showed that high-impact schools had “early warning systems” to identify struggling students or at-risk students. Some schools even went so far as to create “intervention teams,” groups of teachers and administrators specifically charged with developing learning plans for individual students. These individual learning plans, in fact, resemble individualized education plans, or IEPs, used for students with exceptionalities and GIEPs – the gifted individualized education plans used for students with above-average academic ability and performance.

Because of the necessary focus on educational strategies, teachers and administrators will likely remain key players, along with administrators in the development of alternative education strategies. There can be no progress in the education system unless key professionals agree on the target objectives and the best way to use available resources.

Finally, we must also consider ways to reestablish trust between educators, parents, and students. As most system stakeholders know, students who excel or even just perform adequately in school are likely to be relatively neutral in how they perceive the whole public school experience. Not so for those on the other end of the spectrum. Inevitably, it is the struggling, their families and sometimes even their teachers, who have the hardest time trusting the system as it presently exists.

The current system of public education is clearly undermining students who struggle the most. Efforts like Common Core and No Child Left Behind have only worsened an already bad situation, doing little but widen the achievement gaps between those students who struggle and those who excel. The approach to managing academic challenges and poor academic performance is also, at the end of the day, about reinforcing retention or social promotion, with the minimal functional application of resources to support the growth of students’ academic potential.

Click here to read all my suggestions for alternatives to social promotion and retention.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Retention & Social Promotion Series, Trending Topics

Pass or Fail: Mentoring To End Social Promotion and Retention

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

When parents aren’t able to bridge the gap at home when it comes to education, strong mentors can make a difference in how much students learn.

Emma came from a low-income background and struggled with family issues. She joined a mentoring program and was partnered with Sarah. They have now been friends for more than 12 years. Though the inequality inherent in mentoring has been mentioned by some as problematic, in many cases mentoring can be life-changing. In the case of Emma and Sarah, the relationship was mutually beneficial. They would often go to the local Barnes & Noble, where they would sit under a brightly painted artificial tree and read to each other for hours.

Though the relationship was certainly effective in boosting Emma’s reading skills, it had other benefits as well. At one point, when Emma was six years old, she had to call 911 after her mother’s former boyfriend broke into the house. Sarah helped Emma deal with the call and the repercussions. Later, Emma chose to leave her father’s home, where she’d lived for twelve years, and move to her mother’s home two hours away. Sarah helped her in that decision and supported her in the move.

Sarah and Emma also have a lot of fun together, eating out and visiting amusement parks. These fun times do not, however, keep Sarah, the Director of Admissions at Vermont Commons School, from maintaining a focus on Emma’s schoolwork. Emma says, “Yeah, Sarah is always asking me about school and my homework. She always tells me that doing well in school and working toward my future are the most important things. She motivates me to do my best in school.” And this focus has worked: Emma is on the honor roll and has started looking at colleges.

The benefits go both ways. Sarah says, “I don’t have kids of my own, so I have been able to be a sort of second mom to Emma in a lot of ways. And she is just so amazing and fun to be with; I can’t imagine my life without her. My parents instilled in me the importance of giving back. And although I have been on many organizations’ boards over the years, being a mentor to Emma is without question the best thing I have ever done in my life.”

As the story of Emma and Sarah indicates, mentoring can have an enormous impact on the lives of disadvantaged students and those who mentor them. Karcher identifies mentoring as a process based on concepts of attachment theory – how individuals relate to one another and what sense of connection they have based on their relationship. The related concepts also provide evidence to demonstrate the extent to which mentoring can help reengage adolescents who have detached or disengaged from the educational process. Although counseling and mentoring need not be limited to adolescent students, we can assume this is the group most at risk.

Encouraging mentoring on school campuses is one strategy for reengaging adolescent students who have become disconnected from school due to a variety of experiences. The use of mentors should be given considerable weight among the supports that can help preclude the need for retention or social promotion.

A collaborative team within the school context can also help identify students who are not performing at grade level. The collaboration of a variety of stakeholders concerned about the welfare of individual students can identify struggling students sooner and trigger remedial interventions that can prevent damage from compounding itself. Wells et al. found that counselors accurately identified those students on a school campus who were at risk, and were able to determine those who might benefit from interventions. They emphasized, however, that the mere identification of struggling students was of little use in the absence of an intervention plan.

Click here to read all my suggestions for alternatives to social promotion and retention.

 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Retention & Social Promotion Series, Trending Topics

Pass or Fail: Alternative Strategy Factors to the Pass/Fail System

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

If previous efforts and employing one or another of the existing alternative strategies have not been effective, we’re left with this question: what can educators do to develop alternatives to retention and social promotion that will actually work?

Several key points emerge from the existing body of research. First and foremost, research shows that alternatives to grading, retention, and social promotion must represent a multi-stage process that has been carefully planned and tested. While this might seem obvious, especially the requirement that a strategy is carefully planned, we should remember the context in which retention and social promotion occurs, a context that includes significant historical dimensions.

Indeed, one need look no further than the Common Core Standards and one of the major complaints about them: that they are woefully under-tested and embody goals and that have little to do with the real educational needs of individual students.

A second key to developing an effective alternative is the identification of those factors that are most crucial to a successful education policy. What do we need to consider when choosing among alternative strategies? What does the research tell us about the most important elements to a strategy that would replace grading, retention, and social promotion?

Most studies of the effects of grade retention and social promotion are limited in one way or another. The statistical power of many such studies is limited by a small sample size. Even the larger studies are often hampered by inconsistencies in education policy or implementation that make it difficult to interpret the results.

Logic also plays a role in showing the problems with grade retention and social promotion, as well as in determining the basic elements of alternative education strategies for failing students. One of the first points to be addressed from the perspective of logic and common sense is the basis for assigning specific grades to student assignments. We should not only consider the grading process itself but, to gain a wider perspective, we should also consider the ultimate objective of the education system, as well as how we can determine whether that objective is being achieved.

Consider the individual that America’s public education system should be producing. What should that individual be prepared for? Why are they getting an education in the first place? And, as we have suggested already, the “why” should play a big part in determining the “how.”

Whatever we decide regarding the ultimate goals of the public education system, it is clear that students must be examined to determine the knowledge and skills that they have learned in school. We do need to test their readiness for college and employment. But the other side of this coin is that the education process must be capable of transferring knowledge and skills in targeted areas.

A successful educational system must not only address student weaknesses, ensuring at least a rudimentary understanding of mathematics, science, languages, literature, writing, and reading comprehension; it must also nurture individual strengths, giving students an opportunity to develop their unique interests and gifts in preparation for a productive career.

We must also consider the non-academic costs of retention and social promotion on students and the education system as a whole. Although they are inherently difficult to gauge, we know that grade retention and social promotion have impacts that are academic, social, economic, and even emotional in nature.

The American School Counseling Association (ASCA) has offered a model for managing grade retention and social promotion that concentrates on the psychosocial aspects of student learning.

The ASCA’s model for developing academic policies and is based on standards intended to be implemented by school counselors. The ASCA’s model assumes that educators would be more effective at bringing about educational reform if they were more aware of the psychosocial factors that impact students.

Recommendations for educators have included input and supports not only from school counselors but also from teachers, administrators, and parents. This is largely because of the recognized need for as many stakeholders as possible to collaborate in support of academically struggling students.

The ASCA identified many barriers to educational reform, including several that explain precisely why collaborative, comprehensive support strategies are needed to support struggling students. Barriers include family stressors, apathy towards school and potential personal success, academic deficiencies, disabilities, poor behavior to support educators’ efforts, and limited access to resources.

Awareness of barriers to academic success can translate into an awareness of strategies for providing support. For instance, educators are in a good position to be able to resolve academic problems in collaboration with students and parents; They can provide insight into learning strategies for the individual student that may help the to help themselves achieve academic success.

Research has shown that retention causes changes in the lives of adolescents who lack coping skills to recover from the experience itself. Indeed, pressures of certain life changes and life events can be the cause of academic struggles. The intertwining of problems inside and outside the schoolroom highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to supporting students. Bullying and teasing can impact retained or socially promoted students and create additional academic struggles. The development and implementation of a comprehensive guidance curriculum by school counselors can support struggling students and minimize the recourse to retention or social promotion.

The second standard of the ASCA model includes programs that address bullying and teasing of students. Such consideration should be an element of a viable strategy for reducing the need for retention or social promotion. Another suggestion from the ASCA is that educators become advocates for students at risk of retention. Effective educators can advocate for students by making other stakeholders in a school aware of particular struggles and the potential need for more significant supports in the classroom.

Click here to read all my suggestions for alternatives to social promotion and retention.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Retention & Social Promotion Series, Trending Topics

Pass or Fail: The Need for Alternative Strategies

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

If we know that our current pass/fail system isn’t working well — for our students, teachers, families or communities — then what can we do to turn that tide?

Most of the alternatives to retention and social promotion are half measures that do not challenge the validity of the traditional concept of retention. Too many of the established alternatives merely try to mitigate impacts; retention and social promotion are retained as key elements of the educational system.

Difficult and changing ideas, including philosophies and opinions of educators and parents, have complicated the development of effective alternatives to retention and social promotion. Despite the available alternatives, retention, and social promotion remain among the most common strategies for managing academic performance in the current system.

One of the most significant problems with applying alternative strategies is that many are far from comprehensive or well thought out. Many existing alternatives do not show an awareness of the various stakeholders and their potential contributions to a student’s educational success. The fragmented nature of alternative strategies also tends makes it hard to understand the struggles of the individual student.

The so-called self-efficacy theory suggests that adolescents perceive their academic ability regarding their perception of their ability to accomplish tasks. The cognitive function of adolescents reflects the way individuals feel about themselves. Students who experience failure at school have a higher risk of self-efficacy, according to Bandura. There are various other theories, including the family systems theory, which can further explain the risks to adolescents regarding their families and their position in a system that can impact self-efficacy and academic performance.

Although counseling students can help to address problems of low self-esteem, related to poor academic performance, the best interventions do not typically involve parents because of the risk of disrupting the support system as a whole. Furthermore, supports targeting academic and even social needs tend to be limited in scope, largely because there are so many pieces to the puzzle. Most alternative supports are fragmented and limited in their availability because of the degree of specialization (for instance, the availability of resources for specialized instruction in certain areas, or for individualized counseling for students).

Identifying the problems of social promotion specifically, Labaree notes that social promotion lowers the promotional standards in schools. The National Commission on Excellence in Education suggests that this both reflects and encourages the general decline of standards in American society. Labaree also notes that within the school system, a policy of social promotion symbolizes a more general lack of commitment to student achievement.

Establishing low minimum achievement levels for promotion is also, Richard Ebel suggests, a factor that fosters lower achievement expectations. Lowering the “floor” for achievement tends to lower the “ceiling” as well. Perhaps inevitably, there are some who consider social promotion a form of academic dishonesty. It can lead to accusations that schools are rewarding students for lack of accomplishment, instilling an inflated sense of their capabilities and a poor appreciation of the importance of hard work.

Ebel suggests that more rigorous promotional standards are effective at motivating stakeholders to sustain efforts toward higher levels of achievement. Using different standards for promotion can, however, create its problems. For instance, promoting students based on age rather than demonstrated achievement creates significant differences in ability and application of students in different grades.

Disruption becomes more likely when a student perceives a risk of retention. This disruption can affect both the classroom and the student’s family. Academic problems can create severe familial tensions, and these tensions tend to be more pronounced for low-income single parent and minority families, thus becoming entwined with socioeconomic factors.

Click here to read all my suggestions for alternatives to social promotion and retention.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Retention & Social Promotion Series, Trending Topics

Pass or Fail: The Economic Cost of Social Promotion and Retention

In this multi-part series, I provide a dissection of the phenomenon of retention and social promotion. Also, I describe the many different methods that would improve student instruction in classrooms and eliminate the need for retention and social promotion if combined effectively.

While reading this series, periodically ask yourself this question: Why are educators, parents and the American public complicit in a practice that does demonstrable harm to children and the competitive future of the country?

Repeating a grade is not that big of a deal, right? Think again! Both social promotion and retention has negative impact on the American economy and social services.

Grade repeaters are more likely to be on public assistance programs, unemployed, or imprisoned. Assessing family income for recent high school dropouts versus recent high school graduates, and looking in particular at households where students were still living at home, the median income for families of dropouts was $12,100, and the median for families of recent high school graduates was $22,700. For college-enrolled high school graduates, the median family income was $34,200.

Although these elements are not to be regarded as causal – low-income families causing dropouts or the need for retention or social promotion – these factors and statistics suggest that large numbers of dropouts come from single-parent households and households run by women. They indicate the social fallout of the education policy. That is, the current system cannot support at-risk students from families where there are challenges in addition to education.

Students who are retained or socially promoted tend to rely more heavily on social services. They usually earn less over the course of their lifetime than those who are not retained or socially promoted. The considerable long-term costs mean society must continue supporting affected students, rather than education serving its purpose and enabling individuals to be self-sufficient. Indeed, a study which examined the NCLB act, warned of a dropout crisis in the United States. The study determined that, every September, approximately 3.5 million young people in America are seen to enter the eighth grade, with roughly 505,000 of this number dropping out over the next four year, an average of more than 2,805 per day of the school year.

Individuals who drop out of school earn approximately $270,000 less than high school graduates over the course of working lives. Having a high school diploma rather than a skills assessment based on a minimum competency test, also helps to determine whether a person can obtain employment and how much money he or she stands to earn. In 1997, the employment rate of men in the twenty-five to thirty-four-year-old range who did not graduate high school was more than twice that of men who did graduate. Among women within that same age-range, the unemployment rate of those without diplomas was three times higher than those with diplomas.

Retention and social promotion policies tend to impact minority students disproportionately, as they are more likely to be retained or socially promoted and drop out of school. Policies of retention and social promotion potentially contribute to racial disparities. The same appears true for low-income families. Although the correlation between retention and social promotion and low-income families is not perhaps as definitive as the link between minorities and these policies, there is still an apparent link and basis for suggesting that there is a connection to poverty and both retention and social promotion policies.

The 21st century, however, is not the age of overt prejudices or even necessarily direct and transparent racial, social, or economic discrimination. The disparities that exist, some of which may be growing more extreme, remain rather well concealed. In structured systems like education, they often go unaddressed until the situation requires affirmative action. The obvious example with education is that the discrimination against a minority or impoverished student, or even one with a learning disability, occurs from the first day they enter the education system and carries on throughout their career.

Indeed, the discrimination remains in effect, largely unnoticed and undetected, until the affected individual is so severely impacted that he or she is unable to demonstrate appropriate understanding of materials that have been the emphasis of their curriculum for a year. There are also secondary costs related to the lack of academic achievement, which includes the individual’s lost interest in school and decreased potential to excel in a variety of areas not requiring demonstration of academic achievement.

Some quantitative assessment of performance of students, as well as educators, administrators, and schools, will always be necessary, and solutions will not be easy to develop or enact. The alternative strategies are complex and require flexible implementation to overcome the subtlety and variety of prejudices that exist. However, the potential of growing costs and the expansion of those costs justifies the efforts.

With the figures at hand, how can anyone suggest social promotion and retention positively impact our economy and society at large?

  • no reactions
0
Share