No. The students are the ones who suffer, albeit I've heard many public school teachers complain about their own suffering. I've seen schools work harder trying to put a patch on "the problem" or develop "alternative plans" that are little more than in-school detention services than they would have to work to create innovative plans that would see to it that at risk students/families were successful.

I have argued for many years that public education should have choice for students: basic, vocational, and college prep. If students, and their parents, are truly offered choice without the shame and stigma of choosing a "vocation" instead of a "profession," many more students would be happier in school and see a reason to stay in and complete their plans.

A basic education would provide students with necessary life skills, ie reading newspapers, job documents, personal hygene, interpersonal skills, childcare, bill paying, housekeeping, grocery and meal planning/preparing, etc, and at some point in the future, support a choice to pursue higher education.

Vocational education would provide opportunities for students to prepare for work straight out of high school, ie apprenticeships, chef, automobile mechanic/repair, cosmetology, technology, CNA, etc. Vocational education would also prepare students who might choose to enter higher education in their field.

College prep would offer advanced math/science classes, higher level reading/writing skills, internships, college life and survival skills.

The earlier that presently socially promoted students are given the help they need, the greater the possibility that they will succeed and not ultimately drop out of school before graduation or disrupt the educational process for others.

The cumulative effect of students who have accrued deficits in the vital prerequisites necessary for success in secondary education and beyond is the major cause of teachers and students dropping out of public education - teachers because of an untenable working environment and students because of the humiliation of the educational process when they have not been held to account and aided in earlier grades.

Given the relative ease with which this failure of public education could be fixed and avoided with a minimal inexpensive investment, one is left with the regrettable conclusion that minority dominated innercity schools, fail to education Latinos for fear of losing a cheap unskilled labor force and one doesn't educate African American to avoid the success that would cause this country to look at 400 years of systematic degradation of African American culture.

Do adults in the workforce get promotions which they have not earned? While there are some exceptions, the general rule is that one is not promoted until one can prove that he/she has the qualifications to do the job. Why should we use the educational system to teach students for 13 years that they will get promoted even if they can't do the work, only to have them slapped in the face by reality when they are adults? Students all know who is capable of doing grade-level work and who is not. They can tell you what their district policy on retention is and who cannot be retained again according to that policy. Is it really in those students' best interest to pass them and have repeat that struggle every year? If they know they must achieve to pass, they will usually work to do so.

By the time they are in sixth grade, if they are not reading and doing math at grade level, it is highly unlikely that they will ever catch up. Because they are tired of struggling with work they cannot do, they then become part of the dropout statistics when they are old enough. Do I believe in remediation? Of course, I do. But when extra help and summer school haven't helped students reach grade level, those students need another chance to learn the curriculum that they have not mastered.

Furthermore, when students who have not really learned the standard course of study which is considered the minimum for high school graduation enter the workforce, their deficiencies become glaringly obvious to their employers and coworkers. Their conclusion is that, if this is the sort of graduates that school produces, it must not be a very good school. The integrity of the entire educational system is a stake.

Research shows that if a child is kept behind for a year, he or she has about a fifty percent greater chance of dropping out before graduation. Is this really what our goal is? And in reality, is the art of testing actaully well enough developed that we are going to gamble on this? I would rather see a student come close, and be rewarded, than not be able to find a decent job. They are already being shipped overseas by this lame, short-sighted administation as quickly as they can do it.

No students should not be promoted if they don't have the skills. This is the problem with our current system. Instead of grade level systems based on age promotion should be based on skills. I am not suggesting having 7 year old with 12 year olds in the same class age range/skills groups could be created. Summer school, tutoring programs, etc. I have taught them all. Most of the time it is not a matter of learning the skills needed, usually if a student attends then they get passed. And skills need to be measured by a more comprehensive means - not the reliance on one test. By promoting without having the skills we are setting students up for failure so either way social promotion or retention we are setting students up for failure.

I don't know where the line is drawn between a student's failure to learn from that teacher and a teacher's failure to teach that student. Your question reflects the reality, however: either way, it's the student who pays.

Unlike most of American institutions, schools are legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of age. If promotion were based on readiness, rather than age, getting help to the students who need help and challenge to the students who need challenge would become a matter of routine rather than a stigma.

Social promotion does not work. It is the elephant in the living room no one will talk about. Imagine what it must be like to sit in a room daily and know that you don't know what is necessary to succeed there. You also know that every other child in the room knows this too. The only ones who don't seem to know are the adults in your life. What kind of message does that send? How can a child ask for help when the respected authority figures appear not to see the problem?

The true problem is society's perception of retention, not the process itself. If all the adults in the retention situation are supportive and positive, it transfers to the individual child being retained as well as classmates--especially if retention is done in the early years. Children will accept that some people need more practice than others. I have retained kindergarten students when necessary despite some administrators discomfort with this. My principal and my superintendent trust my judgment on this. So do the parents. I have followed up every retained child over the years. Some children go on to be highly successful, others struggle, but no parent who made the decision has ever felt that retaining in kindergarten was the wrong choice for their child. Several parents who decided to move their child on have said it was a mistake and some of them have repeated in the older grades (a harder transition. Each year I have former classroom parents call me to offer to talk to any parent whose child I am thinking of retaining. Parent-to-parent talks are important when considering retaining a child.

I also recommend having the child repeat in my classroom. Some parents worry that the child will be "bored" having the same curriculum from the same teacher. I counter that it is that same routine and expectations that will allow the child to feel confident to become a leader with the new less-experienced students. As a teacher, I can take that student on from where he/she is, because I know what he/she knows and needs to know. Most repeat kindergartners are delighted when they remember something familiar and enjoy helping others with the familiar routines. Most proudly tell others in time that they were "in this class last year, so I know..."

As I have often said, ask your child. What child would say no to an extra year of kindergarten with that all-important Choice Time? Even a kindergartner is aware when he/she can't do much of what the others can. Everyone understands that not all children have the same level of ability at the same point in time, but when a child is significantly lacking, that child usually knows. It is important to face the problem directly and support that appropriate development does not follow an age-specific timeline. No child is deficient, just developing at their own pace. Allow them the best environment for that development to take place. Don't overlay it with unnecessary societal stigma.

I agree wholeheartedly with this person's perspective. It is particularly important to note that students of color are disproportionately held back. Until we can better deal with neutralizing institutional racism, there is no justification for the results of the retention. In my teaching experience (14 years), the only student who was held back and who was successful was a caucasian student. None of the others (who were students of color in our multicultural district) had increased success - either academic or social - as a result of the retention. The statistics are telling. Retention does not work.

Every human deserves the opportunity to learn, over and over again. They need to learn the fullest meaning of what the affairs of life are all about.

Putting a time frame based on grades, degrees and educational promotion as a whole seem to be good rules to follow.

However, try to put yourself in the other fellow's
life.