Yes, if you do a Google search for the words social and promotion, you get 1.73 million results. This fails to take into account that that’s a list of all the sites that have both the words “social” and “promotion” in them somewhere, even if the two words have no connection whatsoever. Unless you think sites such as these somehow have something to do with race issues in schools:
One can only wonder what Mr. Potato Head can teach us about bigotry in the public school system. A more honest search, for “social promotion” in quotes so as to only return pages that contain those words together like that, returns about 16,300 results.
and for those posters who have continually requested a demonstration of proof by you (remember, the person who made the claim) that ‘social promotion’ not only exists, but that when it’s done for minority students, it’s because of TSBOLE???
You can keep on dodging the issue that you raised, but so far as I can figure, the only one who thinks that strategy is working is you.
OK december since you obviously don’t care to address the fact that you are dead wrong on head-start, let’s go back to social promotion.
If advancing a kid to the next grade is wrong (a policy first proposed by Clinton BTW), and not advancing a kid to the next gade is clearly harmful, what do you propose to do?
Vouchers? Not only do these take tax money away from public schools, but they don’t work ( http://www.nsba.org/pressroom/pr092501.htm ). Not only that, but they subsidize the private education of children who already attend private schools (from the above site)
Standardized testing? Well what do you do if the kids don’t pass, since you can’t promote them, and you can’t retain them?
Raise your taxes to pay for better schools? I don’t imagine that you would support this.
I’d also like to point out that a Google search on the Loch Ness Monster returns 47,000 hits. Which means, obviously, that the Loch Ness Monster is even more real and immediate than social promotion is.
Huh? I said that Head Start has not fulfilled its original goal of equalizing education between rich and poor. That’s true. What’s dead wrong?
There’s nothing wrong per se with a biased source, but one must be wary of spin. This source doesn’t say wouchers don’t work; it says, “Poll Shows Vouchers Fail to Meet Americans’ Expectations.” In fact, many studies do show educational gains. When vouchers have been offerred, either pulic or via charities, inner city parents have queued up in large numbers.
This is perhaps the best argument against vouchers. Note that one can avoid this problem by permitting vouchers only at failing schools, like Jeb Bush’s Florida plan.
I don’t want to hijack this thread. In several other threads, I have argued that many aspects of education don’t work. E.g., new math, bilingual education, whole word reading. One way or another, educators need to drop non-working methods and substitute methods that are effective.
You posters are witty about the social promotion cites. However, I feel as if you’re asking for cites that there’s been difficulty beteen Arabs and Israelis. In addition to the two cites already provided:
American Federation of Teachers acknowledges SP: “Ending social promotion merely by developing a new set of rules about how students progress from grade to grade will not address the underlying problem…” http://www.aft.org/edissues/socialpromotion/Eliminat.htm
Harvard Eduction Letter “Earlier this year, President Clinton announced that it was time to end social promotion-the practice of promoting students to the next grade regardless of their academic progress.” http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/1999-jf/retention.shtml
North Carolina Education Research Council: “It is impossible to tell how common social promotion is. Currently, virtually no statistics are kept on social promotions, in part because few districts explicitly embrace or admit to the practice.”
Note that there are no official social promotion statistics. Naturally, because one reason for SP (not the only reason) is to avoid embarassment. Nevertheless, President Clinton was smart enough to know that it was occurring.
december, I tend to agree with some of your theses here, but you are getting hammered because you are not providing anything like supporting evidence.
The posts above refer primarily to the reality of social promotion; they do not strogly support your thesis that SP disproportionately affects minorities.
Take some time, dig up your cites, and come back. They’ll still be here.
I have no evidence regarding the prevalence of this practice. But the question asked above, relating “social promotion” to TSBOLE (if it indeed exists) needs no evidence – merely an examination of definitions.
Grade promotion in education is a reflection that the student has successfully completed expectations for the current grade. Promoting a student who has not completed the academic requirements is, by definition, lowering expectations.
Thus, any example of social promotion is prima facie evidence of lowered expectations. TSBOLE is a theory pertaining to the causes and effects of lowered expectations, and so any example of lowered expectations is clearly a part of TSBOLE.
No, Moebius, it isn’t.
“The Soft Bigotry Of Lowered Expectations”, as outlined by the OP, in the first place isn’t just about ‘lowering expectations’, but that there’s bigotry attached, ie. When we ‘lower expectations’ across the board for all, there’s no bigotry, since it’s equalizing an effect to all.
december has to (and has avoided) demonstrate that the ‘lowering of expectations’ happens in a different way for one group than for another, and that it has to do w/a sense of ‘soft bigotry’ (which he hasn’t really defined)
There may in fact be a substantial number of reasons for ‘social promotion’, which has little or nothing to do w/‘lowering expectations’ let alone because of ‘soft bigotry’.
I posted an example before - the jock that gets promoted, not out of a sense of ‘lowering expectations’ (the did in fact lower standards, but that ain’t the same thing), so they can continue to play football or whatever.
We’ve run out of tea & crumpets, it’s time to break out the hard liquor.
Moebius, I don’t think anyone in the world doubts that lowering expectations is a part of TSBOLE. The question is if TSBOLE exists in the manner december posits. I cannot conclude that a forest exists by holding a toothpick.
Yeah, that’s bigotry. Did you see the movie Hoop Dreams? I recall one or the other of those two basketball players in a segregated dorm or fraternity filled with college athletes. The athletes were effectively paid performers – and not very well paid.
When I was at UC Berkeley, their big basketball star was Bob Presley, who wound up committing suicide after a so-so pro career. He was from the inner city, and his “education” hadn’t taught him to cope with world he had moved into.
Some colleges do make sure that their athletes get a real education, but a lot don’t. Of course this particular low expectations hurts athletes of all races, but Blacks appear to be disproportionately represented.
In the Affirmative Action thread, Monstro discussed the risk of medical researchers objectifying study subjects. In the same way, some universities appear to objectify their athletes.
Mr. wring, I think we’re failing to communicate, but I don’t know how to express myself better.
Lowered expectations, in the form of the alleged “social promotion”, does not have an equal or equalizing effect on all. It has no effect on those that were above the original standard – except possibly to hold the whole class back in the next grade. Rather, it is something that’s done to those people who fell in the area between the old and new standards.
Does the fact that we don’t have a label for this marginal group make our willingness to pass them over any less bigotted? And does the word “bigotted” have two "t"s?
I think that december’s point is that we’re doing some group a disservice by assuming that they can’t make it, and giving up hope for them. The “jock” does not skirt this issue – what’s the chance that he’ll actually get an NBA contract? One way or another, we’re denying the person the opportunity to become a functional part of our society.
decembers point is that there’s ‘lowered expectations’ that come from a sense of ‘soft bigotry’, and that it impacts minorities (apparently) more.
He’s yet to demonstrate anything of the sort. There are examples aplenty of ‘some people being socially promoted’, but there’s no demonstration that it’s due to a ‘soft bigotry of lowered expectations’.
lowered expectations indicates that you don’t expect that group can do better.
I suggest that the phenomenon of ‘social promotion’ is generally a consequence of ‘lowering standards’, which is not the same thing as lowering expectations.
One can lower standards for an athelete (allowing them to pass a class w/o the generally required score on a test) w/o having a lower expectation ('gee, I know Freddie’s as smart as a whip, but 'cause he’s got all these football practices, he doesn’t have time to study).
So, in this example, he needs to demonstrate that the social promotions are coming about because of a lowering of expectations (vs. merely lowering standards) and that the lowering of the expectations was done because of a ‘soft bigotry’
not merely that the ‘social promotions’ exist, but that it’s a case of a bigotry/etc.
Social promotions can also come (as was shown by another poster) as a result of saying, in effect, that while the student has not demonstrated the required level of knowledge to pass to the next grade, the consequences of holding them back a grade would be more adverse than advancing them and perhaps giving additional tutoring.
IN addition, when you’re talking about kids in Special Ed, the entire concept of ‘social promotion’ may not be appropriate, since the passing from grade to grade may have very little to do w/standardize tests.
So, he keeps on stamping his virtual foot and saying ‘see social promotions exist’, w/o addressing the issue of how this proves his thesis.
Let’s try this step by step and see where we agree, where we disagree, and where we need more data. I claim that:
[ol]
[li]Social promotion is prevalent – I believe this point is well-demonstrated.[/li][li]Social promotion is harmful – With Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both on my side, I feel pretty good about this point. (Some of the cites argued that retention was even more harmful, but nobody said social promotion was good.)[/li][li]Social promotion is an instance of lowered expectations. I’m with Mobius. By definition.[/li][li]Social promotion disproportionately affects minorities. This cannot be proved directly by statistics, because school systems are embarassed to keep such statistics. However, the NAEP showed that Black students were unfortunately well behind their counterparts. Students behind their grade level are the ones who receive social promotion. Furthermore, I easily found cites discussing SP and New York City, SP and Chicago (where it has been ended), SP and Phildelphia. SP and Atlanta. In other words, SP is or has been an issue in big city school systems with heavy minority enrollment.[/li][li]social promotion is a form of bigotry – This is harsh. I’m not claiming that people practicing SP are bigots. I do say that they’ve given up on a lot of kids. When a teacher and school system gives up, that student is in trouble. [/ol] [/li][quote]
I suggest that the phenomenon of ‘social promotion’ is generally a consequence of ‘lowering standards’, which is not the same thing as lowering expectations.
[/quote]
Huh? The standards are set by the school system. Are you arguing that when a school promotes a lot of students who don’t meet the standards, then they are in effect lowering standards? If so, that’s just another way to describe the same thing.
Right, when the school promotes a kid who can’t read into the 5th grade, they’ve given up on her. They have a lower expectation. If wring’s kid couldn’t read at age 10, wring wouldn’t give up; she’d move heaven and earth to find a way to teach the kid to read.
When the school gives up and just moves the kid along, what are they thinking? “This kid is too dumb” of “I don’t care enough.” Either way, that’s a kind of bigotry.
Special Ed is a whole other issue. Would you care to expand on this point?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
**Let’s try this step by step and see where we agree, where we disagree, and where we need more data. I claim that:
[li]Social promotion is prevalent – I believe this point is well-demonstrated.**[/li][/quote]
Define ‘prevalent’. 5%? 10%? 2%? then back up the number please. YOu’ve established that it’s talked about, to a degree.
**
[quote]
[li]Social promotion is harmful – With Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both on my side, I feel pretty good about this point. (Some of the cites argued that retention was even more harmful, but nobody said social promotion was good.)**[/li][/quote]
Don’t necessarily agree, alternatives (so far) being holding back (data suggests that this is worse, not only for the student but for their siblings, IIRC from the other page), and allowing the student to drop out (which IIRC was the alternative of choice back in the 50’s.)
**
[quote]
[li]Social promotion is an instance of lowered expectations. I’m ]with Mobius. By definition.**[/li][/quote]
and I’m not. It’s lowered standards. Standards do not equal, are not the same thing as expectations. I spelled out the difference for you. In some cases, there are lower expectations (special ed students for example, we’d have a ‘lower expectations’ of specific knowledge gained by grade 12 than for the average college prep student.) Passing to the next grade means directly that you lowered the bar for passing to the next grade it says nothing about what you ‘expect’ that student to do next year, or what you believe they’re capable of. This is the heart of your point and you don’t make it well.
**
[quote]
[li]Social promotion disproportionately affects minorities. This cannot be proved directly by statistics, because school systems are embarassed to keep such statistics. However, the NAEP showed that Black students were unfortunately well behind their counterparts. Students behind their grade level are the ones who receive social promotion. Furthermore, I easily found cites discussing SP and New York City, SP and Chicago (where it has been ended), SP and Phildelphia. SP and Atlanta. In other words, SP is or has been an issue in big city school systems with heavy minority enrollment.**[/li][/quote]
your insistence that inner city data, (where one has heavy minority enrollment) equals data on minorities is again the basic fallacy that you succomb to (as did the op ed writer you quoted on the pit thread). The fact that two pieces of data co-exist does not in any way imply, prove or even suggest one causes the other. Make that your mantra, please. There’s a ton of other issues existant in inner city schools. Inner city schools also traditionally have a higher percentage of ‘special ed’ students as well, as well as lower funding levels generally. And, the fact that you’ve discovered cites discussing SP and various cities in no way substantiates your claim that it happens more often in those places. In my definately suburban upper scale damn near all white school, in the 70’s, the science teacher asked at the beginning of the school year which students were on the wrestling team, those guys didn’t do squat, and graduated.
**
[quote]
[li]social promotion is a form of bigotry – This is harsh. I’m not claiming that people practicing SP are bigots. I do say that they’ve given up on a lot of kids. When a teacher and school system gives up, that student is in trouble. **[/li][/quote]
and I’m asking you to prove it.
** no, it’s not at all. It doesn’t speak at all to the expectations. As I mentioned before w/the jock example, the school authorities may be passing the kid along for a long list of other reasons (“we think he’s capable of better work, feel that if he’s held back that would be worse for him, so we’ll pass him this time to see if he pulls himself along” or “if he weren’t so busy with football, he’d have been able to study for his arithmatic test…” or “this is the very best this student can do, we have him in specialized classes so he isn’t a 16 year old in 4th grade”) these may have varying degrees of validity or accuracy.
No, I don’t want to expand on special ed, except to point out that unless you’re filtering out for that data, you’re basing your conculsions on faulty evidence.
these ‘tests’ which have determined that particular student a or b doesn’t read - where was that data again?
Reason I’m asking is : 1. I’ve administered reading tests, and most include a time component. So, I had folks who ‘tested out’ as functionally illiterate, when the situations may have been they left their reading glasses at home, they read very, very slowly, or they simply didn’t feel like being tested. I’ve worked w/the bottom rung (as it were) of adults, the most likely to have dropped out, not read etc. and really there’s only been a handfull over the years who literally couldn’t read. And most of those, it was either a language barrier or Developmental disability. So, I"m pretty distrustful of much of your data to support even this one minor part of your OP. Feel free to extrapolate to what I must be feeling about your OP at large.
wring, it looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree on most or these points.
Here’s the NAEP Report. E.g., it says that 63% of Black 4th graders reading is not Advanced, Proficient, or Basic – it’s Below Basic. My impression is that Below Basic for a fourth grader is pretty close to illiterate.
I take your point regarding mistakes sometimes occurring in reading tests, but these numbers appear far too large to be explained away.
Regarding your request to define “prevanlent,” here’s an actuarial estimate. If 63% of Black 4th graders are reading below grade level, I would assume that the percentage retained is no more than 10% of the total, so it appears that around 50% of Black 4th graders may be receiving social promotion. This is a enormous problem, that the US must address urgently.
December’s almost evangelical faith in the power of competition to solve any problem makes it impossible for him to see alternate views.
It is pretty clear that this is more an issue of poverty than it is one of race. The same report he cites and countless others make clear that the best indicators of success are the parent’s educational level and their incomes. Teaching these kids is more difficult than teaching white suburban kids with educated and motivated parents. The obvious solution is to increase funding for inner city schools to decrease class sizes and give them the extra help that they need. I haven’t seen **December{/b] advocating that position yet, I won’t be holding my breath.
I have great doubts that he has any faith that this tough love aproach would actually cause any improvement notwithstanding his inability to see that he is taking a leap of faith in identifying social promotion as synonymous with dissapointing scores. As he has no wish to see the public school system thrive he is motivated to choose a destructive solution to its perceived shortfalls. He almost seems incapable of seeing that the failure to achieve set levels of acomplishment is not synonymous with social promotion.
A bit closer to the topic, I notice he didn’t look into statistics for older students. While there is a significant gap at grade four it does not seem that this gap continues to grow and, in fact actually has narrowed somewhat by age 17. (though dropouts may have some effect). In other words the failure to achieve basic level in grade 4 does not mean that students do not continue to improve in subsequent years. Students who drop out, however, will certainly not improve at all.
Thanks NEd with my bad eyes, I was having a difficult time seeing the report that was linked (for those w/o acrobat, it’s 140 pages of probably what is a, what, 3? font - anyhow, really, really tiny.
And, of course, it doesn’t speak to the questions I asked about the testing either (ie time - if the issue is ‘can Johnny read’, then a timed test isn’t necessarily a good method of determining it. IME, I had folks who ‘flunked’ -tested at a zero reading comprehension, but when I gave them the second version of the test, and had them read it aloud to me, w/o time constraints, they were able to successfully complete the test w/o errors. Can that man read? absolutely. would the standard test say so? absolutely not).
You accuse me of faith. Yet, studies have shown that in the few places that vouchers have been allowed to be tried, students have benefited. You say, “The obvious solution is to increase funding for inner city schools to decrease class sizes and give them the extra help that they need.”
First of all, justifying your approach as “obvious” means that you are reasoning from faith.
Second, the steps that seem obvious to you are precisely the ones we’ve been trying for the last 35 years, ever since the War on Poverty. They haven’t worked.
I agree. Another way to express it is that this is an issue of poor educational approaches. Upper middle class kids can survive ineffective teaching. Poor and minorities are the victims.
ON the contrary, I am a big supporter of public schools. My wife and I went to public schools. We chose to send our children to public school (except for 2 years when the older one’s situation became intolerable.) I am heartsick over the many failures of the public schools.
Unfortunately, the schools are not going to fix their fundamental problems without a big upheaval of current approaches. It will take a boot in the butt to motivate the kind of painful changes that I believe are necessary.
Of course, they’re no synonymous. However, as I see it, social promotion isn’t done for the benefit of the students. It’s a way to get the schools off the hook.
Cite? Certainly I have heard of no studies that demonstrate an agregate benefit to a district. Others seem to show no particular benefit. For instance, this summary of study of san antonio schools spins the results as positive but the data doesn’t show any academic gains from vouchers.
The last 35 years have had a pretty steady history of inequitable funding of public schools so i am not sure what your talking about. What makes you think there has actually been a concerted effort to make top class education available in problem areas is beyond me. Smaller class sizes are one of the few areas that consistently show improved academic results so they are an obvious factor one would consider in assisting economically disadvantaged students.
Your proposition is that students who are not being held back are being dissadvantaged. You have not shown that retained students perform any better in subsequent years. In fact what you are really proposing is to sacrifice students in order to punish the school.
