Social Promotion

[Laharl]

I'd just like to hear what y'all's opinions are on the whole social promotion (letting kids that do not meet requirements to pass a grade move on anyway) versus retention (I'm sure you all know what that is).

I just recently did a relatively big essay on the subject for my English 101 class and have formed my own opinions, but I just want to know what you guys think before I give out some of my findings.

[Moogy]

I don't think people should be allowed to pass if they don't meet the requirements. It promotes the idea that education is unimportant. If they don't understand the curriculum, why pass them? They should be held back until they learn the material.

I could write up a lot more about this and all of the other ways the American education system is fucked up, but I just got up and I'm pretty groggy, so if I write too much it'll probably end up being a mishmash of crap. Maybe later.

[lightdarkness]

I think if you let them slide, it just makes them think they can get away with it year after year
i think you have to hold them back (let them fail) so they can get back on tract
i've never failed, so, i cant say one way or another which is the BEST way.

[Scarlette]

My friend's little sister got held back in kindergarden.

HOW CAN YOU GET HELD BACK IN KINDERGARDEN!!??

I mean really, all they have to do is color and stuff and take unneeded naps and play.

And my friend's little sister is a smart kid, so I don't se how she got held back.

[Falcon]

all true. promoting them while they are still ignorant makes them think that 1. they can get away with whatever they want without education and 2. downplays the importance of actually being educated. in a lot of cases, lack of education and ability to get good jobs are key reasons in the increase of crime and stuff like that.

however, if those people are kept back to "continue learning", they should be tightly monitored. oftentimes, as i'm sure a good many of us have experienced, the older kids who have failed or were held back (especially in elementary and middle schools) are more likely to be bullies, to influence the younger kids in bad ways, and get into more trouble. its a tough issue, and will likely never be resolved because a lot of the teachers and administrators out there dont care about anything except statistics.

[Anonymous]

Alright, time for a few facts:

Retained students have an increased droppout rate, in an extreme sense. 30% of students retained before the 8th grade drop out in total, and it's a virtual surity that those retained twice won't get a diploma. Also, likelyhood of crime increases. Likelyhood of drug use skyrockets. Etc. etc.

Socially promoted students grow more intelligent than retained peers. On standardized tests, they score higher than those held back to "learn what they should have in the first place". Although dropout rate and likelyhood as a future failure in life increase, it's not as much so as retained students.

The correct answer is that neither work, but the country's stance on retaining over letting someone just move on is not good.

[Laharl]

That was me, but my log-in isn't working right lately.

[CalibreneGuru]

I believe (like many of you do) that if they failed the grade then they should be held back. If they fail the grade twice then they obviously aren't capable enough for the next grade and should be held there untill they get their shit together and actually try to learn. What this world doesn't need any more of are people that are to lazy to do something honest and that always rely on others because they were able to "coast" through school without having to do anything. I think it's better for them to be held back a few times and actually learn something than for them to just fly through school and learn nothing. Some people that weren't held back but should have been in my grade don't even know what the Revolutionary War was. That is just sad.

[Varia]

Just because you fail all your classes and never do your work doesn't mean you aren't capable of understanding the content and curriculum. Really, you could be teh smart and never do anything and fail. People know you are smart, but that you don't put in the effort. Then there are the kids that can't read "Spot's Adventure in the Backyard with Suzy and her Blanket!" that do everything, still fail, but get passed because they did the work. My biggest problem with schools is that they don't promote learning, they promote teaching. Notice how students do not enjoy being read the same stuff day in and day out, because the teacher has to? When they end up in a class that interests them, they will go so far as to take time out of their day to study, and learn about the subject. Opposed to cramming for a test, doing it, forgetting it, repeat.

My sentences are all out of wack, but I think i've said what I wanted to say.

[BluE_MeaniE]

I think they should be allowed to excel even if they fail for certain reasons.
Like Varia said, they may still be very smart kids, and they just don't do their work, but then again, just because they're smart I don't think they should entirely be able to just beat the system.
So, they should move on to the next grade, but they and the school, together, need to find a way to fix the problem of not doing any work, or just not caring. (Well, that actually depends on the school. Because many schools have terrible staff members, and working out problems with the school may be a horrible idea. Luckily I come from a good school.)
If the kid still doesn't care, and refuses to work any better, then he might as well be kept back.