HOME

                 Going Beyond Social Promotion

                     Scenes from school:

      It's August, and twenty one administrators and counselors sit in a district conference room, poring over the files of thirty one 9th grade students who do not have enough credits to graduate from junior high school. Most of the credit deficient students have a history of academic non-compliance. Ten to fifteen of them had enrolled in summer school to make up the credits, but either failed to do the work or didn't attend. We see their dismal records in front of us. A junior high counselor argues against keeping them back: some are physically too big to be in junior high; others have intimidated their teachers. A junior high assistant principal offers his own variant of an academic "Hail Mary pass": perhaps, he suggests, these students will turn over a new leaf when they get to high school? It doesn't seem like a sure bet to a high school counselor. Sending students like these to high school, she says, just hasn't worked out. Four hours pass. The group has dead-ended: all twenty one will be sent forward to the tenth grade.

                   Scenes from school:

      A 7th grade teacher awards a failing student a "D" grade so that he won't have him in class next time around. For a variety of reasons--not all his own fault--the student is stubborn, under-skilled, hostile to instruction, and continually gravitating towards--or creating--classroom distractions. The 7th grader goes to 8th grade, and the same thing occurs--not only here but at 9th grade as well. At last, the student enters 10th grade with the skills, attitudes, respect for authority and work habits of an underperforming, angry 5th grader. There is little possibility that the10th grade curriculum will be a match for this student's interests or skills.

                   Scenes from school:

      A teacher stands with his back to the class, working out problems on the whiteboard. He flings out questions, directed at no one in particular. The arms fly, zigzagging through triangles, rectangles and squares. The more capable students, bunched in the front, socialize loudly, listen to their ipods, and randomly blurt brief--but correct--answers to the teacher's questions. The off task noise is such that the teacher cannot be heard at the back of the room where I am seated for an observation. I tap the shoulder of a female student who sits in front of me. She hasn't been taking notes. I ask her if the teacher's demonstration is clear. She says she hasn't understood a thing for five or six days now. Last quarter, she received a "D." "Have you ever been asked a question or called upon to explain a procedure in class?" The answer is no. The teacher continues to work problems out on the board, demonstrating his skill and deep mathematical knowledge by rapid firing challenging questions that are directed at no one. In a post-observation conference, the teacher expresses his dissatisfaction that 40-50% of his students will fail this class. His colleagues regard him as a master practitioner.

      "A Different School of Thought... Bellevue's International School is tough. So why do students love it?"

      "...So far, Bellevue's school has been oversubscribed, and has held a lottery to see who gets in. Being public, it has to accept all ranges of ability. The state has allowed it, however, to require a certificate of mastery to pass the eighth grade. Last year it held back 13 in a class of less than 100--a daring act for a public school. Bruce Saari, one of the founders, offers no apologies: 'Better to bite the bullet early,' he says."

         --Bruce Ramsay, Seattle P-I*

      "My mom was used to the usual high school thing, where if you get an "F" you talk to the teacher and get a C-. Well...I had a teacher for two classes at [the International School], and he failed me for both, and my mom was like 'Whoa!' She talked to him [Saari], and I was on the phone too, and he said 'I don't care. It's your son's own fault. He failed because he turned in no homework. He's a very intelligent kid. Next year he'll have to do the work. So sorry.' He wasn't mean about it; it was totally honest. He said 'If your kid does this now in middle school he'll become a dropout in high school, and I'm giving him a chance now before it's too late.' Failing in middle school-- you're not supposed to fail in middle school!"

         --Katherine Long, Seattle Times**

       
    Mastery learning or social promotion? What can be done for students who don't meet standards?

    And perhaps more important: What can be done for teachers who don't meet standards? What can be done for teachers who do not have the instructional and classroom management skills necessary to meet students where they are and then carry them forward to where they ought to be?

    An effective secondary school recognizes that student responsibility and teacher effectiveness are both necessary for student success. Teachers must be highly qualified instructors, and must be at the top of their game when it comes to creating a classroom climate for learning, and for designing lessons that produce achievement, growth and academic success.

    As a result, teachers in an effective school must run two curricular programs simultaneously:

    The first has to do with curriculum articulation, effective instructional methodology, and a mastery learning approach to skill acquisition (see Mastery Learning Writing Curriculum on this website).

    The second has to do with creating a school-wide expectation that coaches--and requires--students to develop attitudes of attentiveness, participation, responsibility and follow through that lead to breakthroughs in achievement.

    The student quoted by Katherine Long was my own student at Bellevue International School --a young man who was retained at 8th grade and then went on to graduate near the top of his class.

    Retaining students at grade level, if implemented by a failing school as a stand-alone solution for teacher ineffectiveness and resultant student under-achievement, would be a harmful, dishonest practice.

    Who has failed to deliver and to achieve? But when an instructional program is effective, when timely intervention procedures are in place, and when the school's classroom cultures are coherent and student-centered, then, and only then, may retention become an effective tool--of the last resort.

    All these elements were in place in the scenario described above, and when I made the decision to retain this student, he could at last begin to climb up from the low expectations that he had set for himself.

    Meaningful course design and differentiated instruction are critical to the development of skills and habits of scholarship. Teachers must meet students where they are, and they must design engaging, articulated learning activities that have specific targets, that provide decisive, frequent closure, that pique student interest, and that fully distribute responsibility for achievement.

    These are a few of the strategies for raising levels of participation and achievement in America's secondary classrooms:

    In each and every classroom, raised hands will be the protocol for student responses. Raised hands, and the thought provoking silence that accompanies the teacher survey of volunteers--as well as non-volunteers--creates the think-space, wait time and performance pressure necessary for all students to become engaged.

    Instead of inviting blurted (but often correct) responses from the consistently most willing or most capable students, the teacher who expects the entire class to become engaged will use wait time and silence as an instigator for thought and reflection. The teacher will often check for understanding by directing questions to specific students--whether their hands are raised or not--rather than directing a question to the class as a whole.

    The teacher's conduct of lessons will always serve the goal of engaging all students--and of deliberately creating classroom spaces that are safe, that provide time for students to think, and that encourage students to ask questions, to express bewilderment, doubt or skepticism, and if necessary, to be required to re-state what fellow students have said as they respond to question, or ask a question themselves.

    For example: "Sarah: what did Jeremy just say?" Or: "Steven: Sarah has provided an answer for the question that I just posed. Will you please tell the class what she has just said?" And as a followup or clarifying question: "Do you agree?" "Why do you think this is so?" Or: "What reasons could she have had for saying this?"

    One of the great challenges in creating effective classrooms seems to be counter-intuitive: Many educators have been trained to award on-the-spot praise to students who participate. The challenge for teachers who want to raise participation levels for all students will be to refrain from instantly answering a student response with words of praise, such as "good," "excellent." When overused, these well meaning, instantly awarded commendations do not further the conversation; rather they shut down the possibilities for further exploration or clarification.

    Even worse, they create a dependency within the weaker or more reluctant students; a dependency that is based upon the belief that if they do not participate or engage, they know that the teacher will allow their peers to carry the load. What is the teacher's goal after all? Is it to wave the checkered flag when one student gets the right answer, or is it to foster a process whereby all students can stumble upon the answer as a result of processing information on their own? Does the teacher want all students to cross the finish line? If so, then the teacher will often have to resist the temptation to give verbal cues that declare the case is closed. Not always; but often. Plenty of time for praise, administered later and judiciously.

    In moving to adopt strategies like these, the teacher will gradually begin forsake a self sustaining professional delusion: the mirage of full student participation and rapid progress that is conjured when the instructor listens only to the brightest students who, in a semi-chaotic, free-for-all and unstructured setting, carry the full load of student engagement for all the rest. Such a class may seem "lively" and may generate innumerable correct answers that move the discussion forward, but such an illusion can be achieved only by ignoring students who don't get it instantly, or who need more time to think and process information.

    The teacher in an effective classroom must develop patience, and must resist the temptation to move quickly forward before he or she has verified that all students have been tracking the discussion. Full participation and specific performance must be required from each and every student at various points along the way--what I refer to as a "take no prisoners approach" to instruction.

    Teachers who wish to engage all students know that student growth and development have little to do with the mere imparting of information in lecture format alone. "We have covered this before" is a statement that indicates the beginning of an instructional problem that can only continue to grow: "covering" a topic or skill is not the same as implementing activities and strategies for mastering it.

    The task of creating an effective classroom where all students move forward is difficult. Yet this is what it takes for teachers to lead students beyond where they are to "where they have yet to go." Effective classrooms must be in place before a school program can contemplate student retention with a clean conscience.

    Students master content and consolidate their skills as young scholars at different rates. But these differently prepared students are present and waiting for instruction within the same rather than within different classrooms. Time for truth telling: differentiated instruction can meliorate some of this wide variability--but not all. A single instructor can differentiate only so much--and for some students, this limitation on teacher resources, time and skill will not be enough to close the gap. Alas, at the end of a frustrating or disappointing instructional year, many students who do not meet standard are nevertheless given "D" grades and promoted to the next level: a level with a set curriculum that ultimately will have to be decelerated in order to manage the bewilderment or misbehavior of the under-prepared.

    How frustrating it must be for some of our students to journey, year after year, through a curriculum--or a lax instructional methodology--that is not responsive to their needs. How frustrating it must be to teach them. Of what use is it to study "Romeo and Juliet" in a 9th grade class, for example, if a significant number of its students can barely read, think and write complex thoughts in standard English? Of what use is it to survey chemical elements, to balance algebraic equations, or to trace the rise and fall of the Turkish caliphate for students who have yet to catch fire, whose curiosity lies dormant, and who have yet to find a personal motivation for paying the kind of attention that leads to mastery? Why, then, do their teachers promote them to still higher levels, knowing that they are not interested in or ready to accomplish the tasks that will be set before them?

    So far, differentiated instruction has been touted as the remedy for institutional failure of nerve: an unwillingness to tell the truth about where students actually are with reference to the standards, and then irresponsibly promoting them to advanced levels when they lack the skills and levels of personal investment to successfully perform. But if differentiated instruction, inclusion and mainstreaming within regular classrooms cannot bridge the chasm created by such a mismatch, what is to be done?

    Often, a high school's curriculum seems to be set in stone--or is a kind of Procrustean bed that all students are challenged to lie upon--whether the bed fits them or not. It may be time, therefore, to think about creating a different "bed" for a number of the students who arrive at high school unprepared for the first year of instruction.

    One remedy might be the creation of high quality, skill-driven entry level sections. Students would be placed in these based upon their performance on a basic competency diagnostic; a well designed examination that assessed whether a student's entry level skills fell within the spectrum of achievement that would be reasonable prerequisites for growth and success.

    Is this "tracking," or is it realism? Such sections would be designed to be a "step-up," not a dead end. Their goal would be to equip students to focus, to master vocabularies, to become engaged in learning, and thus to move forward to an accelerated level--not to consign them to a perpetually separate track for under-performers.

    Whether the students ever returned to "Romeo and Juliet" or not would be unimportant in the great scheme of things.

    Sections like these would be taught by the most gifted practitioners on the teaching staff; not assigned to newcomers, or to chronically underperforming teachers.

    At the same time, it would be important to begin to staff existing student support learning centers with highly qualified content area, mainline educators--teachers whose skills would qualify them to teach the most rigorous courses within the school.

    Because the responsibility for student success falls to everyone within the school, it would be necessary to rotate both AP and Honors teachers into these support centers for one of their regularly assigned periods per day. Truly, the weakest students deserve to have access to the best and brightest practitioners on the school's staff.

    Teachers like these would be making a sacrifice as they exchange one of their honors or gifted sections for a section of students who are under-prepared; but their students will be called upon to make a major sacrifice as well. If a student is failing several classes all at once, it may be time to reduce the student's class schedule so that he/she can focus on improving in one or two core content areas.

    In lieu of taking social studies, for example, a student may double up on mathematics, enrolling in both the regular math course and in the newly configured, more effective learning support center. Such students will be short of credits, and will have to make these up at summer school, or by extending their graduation date.

    When is retention or repeating a grade appropriate?

    Let us assume that highly effective teaching and differentiated instruction are in place within a school. If such is the case, then respect for individual student differences and for mastery learning would require that students be retained at curricular levels if they need more time to familiarize themselves with content, or to acquire the skills and work habits that will help them to become life-long learners.

    During my tenure at Bellevue International School, Lake Washington International School, and Marysville Arts & Technology High School, students were not promoted to the next level of study until they had acquired the skills--and demonstrated the work and attendance habits--that were necessary for success as they moved forward. Both skills and work habits had to be in place for promotion to occur.

    School cultures that insist upon these two expectations being met will not allow students to merely "get by," or to deliberately, consciously underperform. In order to preserve the quality of the learning experience at higher levels, students will not be promoted until they have demonstrated the competencies and the attitudes that will be required for constructive participation and success at the next level. Unified staff commitment to the fulfillment of these expectations for each and every student will also prevent the forward movement of a constantly bewildered and restive learner cohort. Hence, there will be no "D" grades. Students must earn a 70% score--a Cminus or better--in order to move forward to the next level.

    Repeating a course can bring enormous benefits to students who are truly "struggling." But without timely interventions and academic support at the earliest grades, having to repeat a poorly taught course would be Draconian. If teachers themselves are "C minus" when it comes to designing the learning activities that are meant to close skill gaps, then retention would be unthinkable.

    But retention would be entirely appropriate in a system-wide instructional culture that meets students where they are, and that provides the support they need to "go beyond where they are." And if the students are not "struggling," but rather "slip-sliding," then retention is all the more appropriate. Retention in these cases is one of the last opportunities educators have to alert their students to the realities of effort, economics and the working world.

    A school system that practices retention has an obligation to guarantee that its teaching & learning equation is effective and self-renewing.

    Curriculum must be intentional, sequential and coherent, and its learning goals must be clearly understood both by students and staff. Most important, entry level course sections must be realistic about student capabilities. Most first level courses should have a skill emphasis--the "step-up" referred to earlier. Artfully designed, skill emphasis courses can challenge even the highest performers; poorly designed, they do not inspire.

    In order to maximize success for all students, classroom activities must be appropriately sequenced, and students must be placed at the center of the experience.

    Checking for understanding must become a high priority instructional strategy. Each student, in each class, must be held in a state of suspense as to when he/she will be called upon to re-state what has just occurred either in the lecture or the demonstration.

    Under conditions like these, students naturally tend to be more attentive and more successful; and success creates an enthusiasm for learning that makes all standards assailable. Do we believe in our students? Do we believe they can do this?

    Many secondary content area departments are not currently in a position to accomplish this. So what must be done?

    Departments must identify key skills that will be taught and reinforced in each grade, and then carried forward to year to year. Individual teachers must be held accountable for effectively teaching these clearly identified skills.

    Departments must also create an articulated course sequence that stair-steps previous and new learning. Courses would be sequenced and linked together by a graduated skill matrix--much as they are in mathematics classes.

    The question then becomes not "when shall we do 'The Great Gatsby,' or cell division, or the Civil War" so much as: what skills shall we emphasize, revisit, refine, extend, apply and reinforce when we do any of these?

    Curriculum that is articulated and intentionally designed along skill development lines is the means by which the belief that "all students can learn" can become reality.

    Retention may be used as a tool only when such quality instruction is ensured.

    Students who nevertheless need more time to acquire these skills in order to meet performance standards must be held back in applicable content area courses for the entire year.

    The purpose of such consequences in cases like these is to retrain, and to develop within students the attitudes, aptitudes and talents that they need for success. It is not about short-term credit retrieval or assignment completion.

    Students deserve the opportunity to repeat a class in order to "get it," and teachers deserve the opportunity to teach students who are prepared for the coursework that they offer. But teachers all up and down the line have the obligation to be great teachers: teachers, not mere technicians who roll out pre-determined course content.

    In order to present themselves as candidates for promotion at the end of each school year, students must demonstrate that they have the requisite skills in order to occupy a classroom desk at the next grade level.

    In an effective school system, how could it be otherwise?

    If a curriculum is properly constructed with an eye toward essential questions and sequential skill development activities, then students will discover that they are not revisiting "boring" material when they repeat a class. Instead, they are being invited to explore a depth curriculum that still holds many discoveries for them.

    Our greatest success stories have to do with students like these--students who, for a variety of reasons, struggle and then repeat, and who are ultimately guided to achievements that were within the circumference of their capabilities all along.

    The self-esteem that derives from this experience is authentic, and it is earned.

    What we have learned is that students who repeat discover that there is a relationship between their effort and their achievement--and therefore learn at an earlier (rather than a later) age to make a more purposive commitment to their school work.

    The fact is that all students can learn; we know that.

    The other fact is that a lack of motivation or training can often be the greatest impediment to student progress at a specific curricular level. Effective teachers must do their utmost to address these factors in order to inspire achievement in their students.

    Teaching and learning become more productive and more enjoyable when students in each class section have earned the right to be enrolled at a particular grade level.

    Our goal is to help students earn that right; and to ensure that what we are asking of them is a "reach," but is also within their capabilities.

               © 1998, 2009