4 ms·

But what is the message that students get from social promotion? How about that there is no incentive to learn An educational system that incentivizes learning

But what is the message that students get from social promotion? How about that there is no incentive to learn An educational system that incentivizes learning via fear of failure (public humiliation in this case) is broken. This false dichotomy of social promotion versus holding students back ignores the necessity of finding new ways to engage struggling students. Of course promoting kids to face material for which they are not prepared is going to be a problem. But having them repeat the material in the same manner and expecting them to catch on the second time around is lunacy as well. The biggest problem that I see in education is the focus on measuring achievement in an easily-measured, narrowly-defined way. That such a system has become gamed to the point that even the successful students aren't really learning should be no surprise. What's the solution? I know there aren't easy answers, but it has to start with making learning and teaching fun. The happiest moment in a teacher's day is when the light switches on for a student. Though it is cliche, learning is fun, but the caveat is that it's the most fun when the lesson is applied.

btilly 16y ago
An educational system that incentivizes learning via fear of failure (public humiliation in this case) is broken. While nobody likes to fail, failure is not important mostly as a means of motivation. It is important because repetition often helps. You claim that it is lunacy to expect that a second go will solve problems. Yet that "lunacy" has worked out pretty well for people I know who had to retake courses and grades. The second time through, usually with different teachers, the students learned. Part of it was the age advantage. Part of it was a different teacher. Part of it was the fact that if you halfway learn the first time, there is less to learn the second time. Taking failure off the table out of excessive concern for hurting fragile feelings does everyone a disservice. And is a far greater lunacy than being willing to tell people, "You haven't learned this material, you need to try again."
- briancooley 16y ago
  Taking failure off the table out of excessive concern for hurting fragile feelings does everyone a disservice There's more at stake than students' hurt feelings. Your anecdotes aside, statistics show that retaining students is expensive and largely ineffective [1]. What's most dangerous to me is the idea that without the threat of failure there is no incentive to learn. That's a viewpoint that deserves scrutiny. It's narrow-minded and serves mostly to blame the student. It also closes the door to examination of alternative ways to best serve the section of the student body most likely to be considered for social promotion. The other side of the spectrum is standardized testing, which places the blame on teachers and encourages them to narrow their focus to material that will be on the test. And it's all built around proving that students can fill in the right circles on a standardized test, such that even the successful ones aren't guaranteed to be able to do practical things (e.g. CS majors that can't write a program). The bottom line is that we are not really teaching. More importantly, we are not teaching kids how to learn, which is the key to motivated students. [1] http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/99-06.pdf http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/99-06.pdf
  - btilly 16y ago
    What's most dangerous to me is the idea that without the threat of failure there is no incentive to learn. You are arguing against a straw man. I gave you several specific reasons why it is good to fail students who have not learned the material they need for their further education, and you have addressed none of them. To your straw man I'll reply with something that should be both obvious and important. There is no possibility of learning when you are put in a classroom with material that assumes you possess a foundation you don't have. Furthermore if the teacher attempts to address the deficiencies of those who haven't learned the basics, there is no possibility of teaching what was supposed to be taught in that class. Therefore social promotion creates a situation where teachers get a choice of bad options, and no available good ones. The costs of these poorly set up classrooms are extremely difficult to properly measure. But they are absolutely real. And it is important to note that a significant fraction of those costs fall on the students who were not socially promoted. Looking at the research you quoted, this critical factor is ignored. Yes, students who are allowed to fail learn less than ones who are socially promoted. There wasn't strong evidence whether they learn less by the same grade. But the most important fact to me, whether or not OTHER students learn less when put in classrooms where teachers have a broader mix of students - wasn't even looked at. Furthermore the option of summer school wasn't addressed. That gives you the best of both worlds. Students who need it get extra time. And get to stay on course. It worked well for me. I personally had a crappy grade 9 French teacher, was passed when I should of failed, then failed grade 10 French. I retook the course in summer school and passed. It would have been better still if I had failed grade 9 French instead. (And better still if I had a decent teacher there, but such is life.)

btilly 16y ago

An educational system that incentivizes learning via fear of failure (public humiliation in this case) is broken. While nobody likes to fail, failure is not important mostly as a means of motivation. It is important because repetition often helps. You claim that it is lunacy to expect that a second go will solve problems. Yet that "lunacy" has worked out pretty well for people I know who had to retake courses and grades. The second time through, usually with different teachers, the students learned. Part of it was the age advantage. Part of it was a different teacher. Part of it was the fact that if you halfway learn the first time, there is less to learn the second time. Taking failure off the table out of excessive concern for hurting fragile feelings does everyone a disservice. And is a far greater lunacy than being willing to tell people, "You haven't learned this material, you need to try again."

briancooley 16y ago
Taking failure off the table out of excessive concern for hurting fragile feelings does everyone a disservice There's more at stake than students' hurt feelings. Your anecdotes aside, statistics show that retaining students is expensive and largely ineffective [1]. What's most dangerous to me is the idea that without the threat of failure there is no incentive to learn. That's a viewpoint that deserves scrutiny. It's narrow-minded and serves mostly to blame the student. It also closes the door to examination of alternative ways to best serve the section of the student body most likely to be considered for social promotion. The other side of the spectrum is standardized testing, which places the blame on teachers and encourages them to narrow their focus to material that will be on the test. And it's all built around proving that students can fill in the right circles on a standardized test, such that even the successful ones aren't guaranteed to be able to do practical things (e.g. CS majors that can't write a program). The bottom line is that we are not really teaching. More importantly, we are not teaching kids how to learn, which is the key to motivated students. [1] http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/99-06.pdf http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/99-06.pdf
- btilly 16y ago
  What's most dangerous to me is the idea that without the threat of failure there is no incentive to learn. You are arguing against a straw man. I gave you several specific reasons why it is good to fail students who have not learned the material they need for their further education, and you have addressed none of them. To your straw man I'll reply with something that should be both obvious and important. There is no possibility of learning when you are put in a classroom with material that assumes you possess a foundation you don't have. Furthermore if the teacher attempts to address the deficiencies of those who haven't learned the basics, there is no possibility of teaching what was supposed to be taught in that class. Therefore social promotion creates a situation where teachers get a choice of bad options, and no available good ones. The costs of these poorly set up classrooms are extremely difficult to properly measure. But they are absolutely real. And it is important to note that a significant fraction of those costs fall on the students who were not socially promoted. Looking at the research you quoted, this critical factor is ignored. Yes, students who are allowed to fail learn less than ones who are socially promoted. There wasn't strong evidence whether they learn less by the same grade. But the most important fact to me, whether or not OTHER students learn less when put in classrooms where teachers have a broader mix of students - wasn't even looked at. Furthermore the option of summer school wasn't addressed. That gives you the best of both worlds. Students who need it get extra time. And get to stay on course. It worked well for me. I personally had a crappy grade 9 French teacher, was passed when I should of failed, then failed grade 10 French. I retook the course in summer school and passed. It would have been better still if I had failed grade 9 French instead. (And better still if I had a decent teacher there, but such is life.)