Beyond Retention and Promotion

Introduction

During the recent history of the American educational system, the paradigm pendulum has oscillated between “advocating social promotion and supporting in-grade retention” (McCombs et al., p. 1, 1999). Historically educators and policymakers have believed that these are only two possible solutions for struggling students: whereas social promotion pertains to “passing students who have failed to master part or all of the grade-level curriculum on to the grade with their age-grade peers,” in-grade retention mandates “students to repeat the same grade a second time in order to master what was not learned.” I can attest from own anecdotal perspective this past year the strain spurred by the dichotomy of promotion vs. retention, aptly referred to by Thomas (2003) as a “bipolar notion” (p. 323). How can I pass a student who has not displayed the ability to achieve at the academic benchmarks set for him or her by state, national and my own standards? Contrastingly what benefit will come from mandating the student be retained, inevitably adding to the students sense of failure and nihilism?
Further investigation into this epidemic affecting the education exposes my ignorance, and unfortunately I believe a shared ignorance of most educators and policy makers, to the over-simplification of the issue. The either/or absolutes of retention and promotion provide no satisfactory solutions for underachieving students, as neither has historically worked. Historically no policy has ever gone beyond retention or promotion. The inherit failure in both retention and promotion, according to Thomas (2003) is that these strategies seek to help “students after they have encountered difficulty or have experienced failure instead of focusing on reducing failure before it emerges.” Moreover, according to the American Foundation of Teachers (1997) “Neither social promotion nor retention is an adequate response to student underachievement, in large measure because neither requires change in pedagogy, content or curriculum.” In sum, the tried and failed solutions of the past have only attempted to treat the symptoms of this epidemic, whereas only a radical new approach can treat the disease.

In-Grade Retention: The “Tails Down” Approach

As the educational pendulum has swung and continually missed the mark in this “bipolar debate”, in-grade retention has experienced both the endorsement and opposition of policymakers and educators (Thomas, p. 326, 2000). In-grade retention has a strong “intuitive appeal” and a long history despite research exposing its negative affects (McCombs et al, p. 1, 1999). Under the Clinton administration, policymakers endorsed in-grade retention to go in tandem with higher educational standards, assumed as the only alternative to social promotion. According to the McCombs et al. (1999), however, the research shows that the effects of retention can be harmful academically and socially. Specific notes of interests include: “50 percent of students who repeat a grade do no better the second time, and 25 actually do worse”; the threat of retention is not a motivating force for students to work harder”; Retention is strongly associated with dropping out of school in later years. A second retention makes dropping out a virtual certainty”; “Retained students suffer lower self-esteem and view retention as a punishment and a stigma, not a positive event designed to help them.” Thomas (2007) echoes the findings of this research, finding that “retention fails to improve student achievement and it frequently retards student learning” (p. 327). But why?
Thomas (2007) points out that retention is basically more of the same, the same that has already failed to work. This traditional approach places the blame with the student, instead of “examining school and classroom practices of poor performing students or focusing on changing the learning environments to meet the particular needs of theses individuals” (p. 326). Unfortunately but not surprisingly, “retained students are frequently exposed to the same academic content, the same instructional delivery, and sometimes even the same teacher that already proved ineffective.” It is arrogant to assume that these failed practices will, by some deus ex machina, become successful over the span of a year. Instead it only serves to create embittered, failure-prone, and nihilistic students. Moreover, Thomas (2007) reiterates McCombs et al concerns, as “failure and punishment lead to a sense of learned helplessness, hopelessness, anxiety, and low persistence in the face of difficulty.” Reflecting on my first year as a teacher, I can clearly see how I cannot have expected my students to change and improve academically if I made no attempt to change and improve myself as an educator. McCombs et al (1999) points out the need to abandon “the deficit model, which places the problem of poor achievement within the child, and to acknowledge that classroom and school practices contribute to a child’s failure” (p. 8) At my school, for example, over 54 students out of a class of 125 had their promotion in doubt. By the end of the year, many underachieving students had become antagonistic and lethargic, acquiescing to the hopelessness of their situation. As Thomas (2007) explains, retention “sends a smessage that the teacher and school do not consider the student capable and it increased the chances of student frustration, disengagement, and school dropout.” (326) They believe that they cannot make a difference in their own learning. More than anything this else, this depressing figure of failing students should have signaled that the blame lay more with the institution educating the students rather than the students themselves.

Social Promotion: The “Heads up” Approach

Neither Thomas (2000) McCombs et al (1999) nor the findings of the American Federation of Teachers (1997) espouse social promotion as the negation of the woes of retention, however. In this binary attrition of the American educational system, promotion only serves as superficial solution to the psychological consequences of holding a student back. According to the survey conducted by the American Federation of Teachers, social promotion is “rampant” despite no one explicitly endorsing it. Unfortunately, in the long term, promotion tends to prolong and exacerbate the problems exposed by retention. As Thomas (2000) explains, “simply passing on ill-prepared students is an insidious practice because it hides school failure and relieves schools of responsible teaching” (p. 327). Academically speaking, “social promotion results in many children being promoted through the grades while their learning deficits are ignored, thus becoming cumulative and more intractable over the years such that ‘catching up’ is virtually impossible.” After learning of the high number of 8th graders with promotion in doubt, the administration euphemistically hinted that the figure would have to change drastically. The teachers of the major disciplines were then forced to provide “make up” projects for in-jeopardy students, allowing a whole semester’s worth of neglected work to be made up in one assignment. Through promotion, educators and policymakers remain arrogant to their own failures and once again it is the students who are left to suffer.
Psychologically, students develop a negative complacency towards learning, knowing promotion is inevitable regardless of hard work or mastery of skills. Several of my students held this viewpoint, having previously been told by teachers they were failing only to have grades “mysteriously” change on their final report cards in year prior. Administration surreptitiously changing grades to bolster city reviews is an all-too-true reality at my school. In the long term, “social promotion can delude student into thinking that they have the critical skills and abilities to be successful, or worse, encourage them to believe that learning does not matter.” Cognitively unable to comprehend the future consequences of this “get out of jail free” card, I fear my students are being led down a path that will only hinder their chances for a successful and fulfilling life.
Thomas (2007) projects a seemingly more apocalyptic outcome of the academic and psychological effects of social promotion…
While it is certainly easier to pass low-performing students onto the next teacher than to seriously deal with the needs of these students, this practice will only produce youngsters who will be ill-prepared for responsible citizenship and unable to meet the demands of an increasing complex, technological and global society.
(Thomas, p. 327, 2000).
This “deleterious impact on society” by social promotion leaves students, the countries future leaders, horribly unprepared for perhaps the most significant challenges ever presented to a generation and the world in general. Democracy requires an engaged, enlightened and engaged citizenry, and neither social promotion nor retention accommodates for this system. Moreover, as the education of a country goes so goes the rest, so with “a growing population of undereducated adults” brings “lower economic productivity of workers, increased need for social services, higher rates of crime and other undesirable behaviors.” As the educational quality of America’s citizenry decreases, so will too decrease the countries independent, innovative, and global-contending prestige.

Beyond Retention and Promotion: Is a Learner Centered approach the panacea to the bipolar debate?

Obviously, from my own experience as well as from what the research has shown, neither the “heads up” approach of social promotion nor the “tails down” of in-grade retention serve as an antidote to what has classically been a two party debate. Perusing the last the thirty years of educational history, its been a coin toss. On either side of the coin, however, it has been the students who have suffered the consequences. But must the coin always be flipped? If we continue to be the same in, we will continue to get the same out. Is there room for an alternative in this dichotomy then? Both McCombs et all (1999) and Thomas (2007) believe there is: a complete paradigm shift from the ideology of retention and promotion. Both sides of this coin have always placed underachievement and failure in the student. Pedagogy, content and curriculum have never been brought under trial however.
Thomas (2007) espouses what is known as a learner-centered that would have significant implications for classrooms, curriculum, instruction, and school organization. This approach seems certainly more in line with the student-centered locus-of-control educational theories discussed by Johnson et al (2008). Is the learner-centered approach the panacea to the epidemic so far only prolonged and exacerbated by retention and promotion though? Its suppositions seem promising, because at its core, the approach is “the creative of a learning environment that aggressively works with students before they reach the point of failure” and rendering the debate over retention or promotion moot (Thomas, p. 325, 2000). A third alternative is created, according to Thomas (2000), by a complete restructuring in how educators approach cultural diversity, professional development, environment, assessment, school practices, and school reform. McCombs et al (1999) also provide strategies that circumvent retention and promotion including: “enhance the professional development of teaches to ensure they have the knowledge and skills to teach a wider range of students to meet standards; redesign school structures to support more intensive learning; provide students the support and services they need in order to succeed when they are needed; use classroom assessments that better inform teaching” (p. 28). Moreover, American Federation of Teachers President Sandra Feldman (1997) distinguishes three alternatives to retention: “early intervention and identification of students who are falling behind”; establishment of grade level standards”; and “strengthening teacher training. All these strategies seem to converge on the idea of the learner centered approach. The most significant difference that all these strategies share from previous ideologies is that, as Thomas (2000) points out, “teachers and other school personnel must assume responsibility for creating a context that guides, stimulates and encourages learning to take place” (329). Therefore “retention or promotion” is never an issue. The most appealing aspects of the learner-centered approach are its espousal of early intervention and its emphasis on professional development. The ultimate strength of the learner-centered approach is that it challenges this bipolar notion, a radical tangent from the history of either/or that has plagued the American school system over the past thirty years. Though perhaps not the elixir to all America’s educational woes, with the learner-centered approach, no longer can the student be blamed for the failures of others.

References

American Federation of Teachers. (1997) Passing on failure : District promotion policies and practices. Washington, D. C.: American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved July 16th, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED421560&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED421560

Johnson et al. (2008). Foundations of American education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

McCollum et al. (1999). Failing our Children: Finding alternatives to In-Grade Retention. San Antonia, TX: Intercultural Development Research Association.

Thomas, G. V. (2000) The school reform movement and the education of African american youth: A retrospective update. The Journal of Negro Education, 69 (4), 323-337.