Wednesday night- In my last post I wrote about an experience I had when I was barely an adult that stuck with me for the past 23 or so years. It’s not as if I brooded over it constantly but the lessons I learned have surfaced on more than one occasion. The last time was in late May, 2011. I was avoiding some odious cleaning-related task by reading through the education blogs that have proliferated here in Seattle over the past few years. I came across a post regarding the School Board meeting that had just taken place. One of the district proposals that the Board had voted on concerned the grade retention policy.
Grade retention policy? I jumped over to the School District web-site, and then to the School Board page. I found the agenda for this particular meeting and searched from there to find the committee meeting where this issue was discussed by the Curriculum and Instruction committee. The PDF of the District’s proposal was linked and I clicked on it. The first thing that popped out at me was a statement under the Background Information heading:
“It is appropriate to have a promotion/retention policy to permit promotions
or retentions to happen; the revised D 43.00 is modeled on the WSSDA policy
and also reflects comments offered by individual principals, the High School
Steering Committee and the Middle School Counselors Committee.”
School Board Briefing/Proposed Action Report, 3/17/2011
Who says that it is appropriate? There is no source cited. Mentioning that the policy is modeled on the Washington State School Directors Association’s policy is not the same as citing a source. The proposal cites no research that backs up the assertion that retention is appropriate. Noting that it reflects comments from some committees and individuals should mean very little to the critical thinker.
Further down in the proposal under the Statement of Issue heading is the following:
“By revising the overarching policy (D 43.00) and repealing the grade-span specific
policies we continue to permit schools to promote or retain students, but remove
the specific obligations and requirements that bounded schools and teachers.”
School Board Briefing/Proposed Action Report, 3/17/2011
See that? Removing the obligations and requirements means that the District is proposing to stream-line the process to retain students. I know that promotion is mentioned but I am not alarmed about the promotion part. What is the rationale behind adopting a policy that makes it easier to retain a kid?
“Children who are retained may make greater academic progress the year following retention, thus lending credence to the practice of retention (Peterson, DeGracie, and Ayabe, 1987; Alexander, Entwisle and Dauber, 1994). These increases are often not lasting, however. With schools' concern about AYP, though, these increases may make a difference.” A Perilous Policy Path: Grade Retention in the Age of NCLB Author: Pamela Powell, Ed. D., 2010
So the District is streamlining the retention policy in order to make it look as if the school and the District made Adequate Yearly Progress?
Under the heading Research and Data Sources/Benchmarks, The District argues that the proposal is based upon the policies adopted by the WSSDDA, and the Tacoma, Spokane, and Bellevue School Districts. And:
“In addition, a draft of the policy was brought to the High School Steering Committee
and the Middle School Counselors Committee for review and comment, and all
principals were invited to comment on the draft policies. The draft currently in front
of the School Board reflects the best thinking of the individuals who helped review.”
School Board Briefing/Proposed Action Report, 3/17/2011
This policy reflects the best thinking. The best. Really? Are you kidding me?
There is an educated person who wrote up this fecal matter and presented it to the Directors in Committee who then approved it and sent it on to the entire Board. Yes, I said fecal matter. I am a candidate now so I have to watch what I say. I’d like to use some stronger language but I am the picture of restraint and thoughtful criticism.
There was a group of adults, most with Master’s degrees and some with administrative credentials who “reviewed” this policy draft and approved it. Did any of them take the effort to…I dunno…look for research on this topic? I am not saying that any of these folks should take a lot of time out of their busy schedules to trudge down to the UW library and pull out dusty tomes for some obscure research paper that might just throw doubt onto the appropriateness of this proposal. Not at all, that would take hours out of their day and who has the time to inconvenience themselves over something as unimportant as a child’s future. I mean, c’mon.
I’m not expecting hard effort here, but didn’t any of the people who looked at this even bother to go over to their computers, or better yet stop playing Angry Birds on their smart phones long enough to use the web browser to Google “Grade Retention”?
Hey! You! Yes you, the person reading my blog, go ahead and try it. Google “Grade Retention”.
Don’t worry; I’ll be here when you get back.
If you just Googled the phrase above then you saw what I saw when I did the same thing. You are also smarter than the Adminstrators and Counselors the Seattle Public Schools has on its payroll.
If you want to, check out a meta analysis on grade retention that covers research done over the past 90 years (+/-) on grade retention. I know it's 10 years old, but it's extensive and a good jumping off point for anyone who wants to delve into the research on this subject.
Over the years I have worked with kids who had been retained. Every single one of them was humiliated by the experience. Most of them attempted to conceal it from others, if possible. I can’t think of any who truly benefitted from it. In reality it damaged them. Their self esteem was low; they still had academic/social/behavioral problems. They were scarred by the experience.
There should be no policy for retaining kids. It is a failed policy, a harmful policy, and it has no place in any organization that exists to help children reach their potential.
And yet-
On the night of May 18th The Seattle School Board voted unanimously to approve the policy which will make retaining children easier. Unanimous. These are the people who are ultimately responsible for our childrens' educational well-being. Not one vote against this proposal brought forward by the best thinkers in our District. Brought forth by a representative of our Interim Superintendent. None of the Directors took the time to do what some of you just did a few minutes ago. They voted in ignorance of the facts and, most importantly, of the profound effect their vote will have on our most vulnerable children.
When I read about it the next day, I remembered what the Teacher said to me so long ago,
"Everything we do carries a consequence. Everything. But some of us don't see the results of our actions."
and I made up my mind-
My name is John Cummings and I am a candidate for School Board Director, District 1.
1 comment:
your post is really good
call centre bank permata
Post a Comment