DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 099 412 TM 004 012

AUTHOR Reiter, Robert G.TITLE The Promotion/Retention Dilemma: ghat Research Tells

Us. Report No. 7416.INSTITUTION Philadelphia School District, Pa. Office of Research

and Evaluation.PUB DATE Dec 73NOTE 230.; Not available in hard copy due to marginal

legibility of original document

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC Not Available from EDRS. PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; *Academic Failure; Academic

Standards; *Grade Repetition; *Literature Reviews;*Student Promotion

IDENTIFIERS Philadelphia Public Schools

ABSTRACTA review of the literature in 1965 revealed

considerable research into the respective merits of policies of (1)automatic promotion for all pupils, and (2) rigid retention-in-gradefor those whose achievement was jutged deficient. Although neitherextreme was a panacea, promotion appeared to have fear disadvantagesthan retention. Pupils who repeated one or more gradee tended tobecome discouraged by their conspicuous failure and to be no better-;off at the end of their schooling than if they had been promoted eachyear with their age-mates. Studies since 1965 have suggested that formaximal learning to take place, the.crucial issue is how theindividual pupil is treated in his school--including how he is eitherpromoted or retained--rather than the adoption of one policy oranother. They call for (1) human treatment of each pupil as a personof value, and (2) creative provision of appropriate learning tasks inwhich the individual pupil can experience success. To assure theseconditions, the role of the educator who works with each pupil is noless critical than that of the policy maker. (Author/RC)

O"titOO

On the original document,printed on both sides ofthe paper, Page 4 won in-tentionally left blank.)

Report #7416

THE PROMOTION/RETENTION DILEMMA:

WHAT RESEARCH TELLS US

An informal review of research literature related tothe effect.: of retention-in-grade upon pupils whoseachievement is judged inadequate.

December 1973

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

Office of Research and Evaluation

-E ST Cory 0i1 iL 464 5

r-

SCncxn DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

,

Matthew W. e'ostanzoSuperintndent of Schools,

Robert W. PoindexterThcecutive Dopqty Superintendent

David Al HorowitzAssociate.Superintendent for School Services

BOARD OF EDWATIoN

. .

Arthur W. Thomas, presidentDolores Oberbltze, Vice-Prbnidant.Augustus Bakter

'71::40.byann BooninPhilip=DavidoffGeorge Hutt ti

.William RossRobert M. SebastianAlecAashco, Jr.

OFFICE DV- RESEARCH AND.EVALUATION

Michael H. Kean, Executive Director

Edward K. Brain, DirectorResearch and Developmi:nt Serric

This repnrt was prepared by

Robert G. Reiter, Research Associate

I

A review of the literature in 1965 revealed consideri.ble

research into Oe respectivc, rerits of:policies.of (a) ,automatic promo-

Lion for all pupik, and (b) rigid retentioh-ingtade for those whose/-/ .r

achieVement was judged deficient'. As a general policy, although neither

ext ere was.a panacea, promotion appeared to have fewer disadvantages

than retention. Pupils who repeated one or more grades tended to become

discouraded by their` conspituous failure-and to be no better off at the

end of their schooling than if they had been promoted each year with

their age-mates.

Noting that the promotion/retentiondilemma has not yet been

fully resolved, studies since 1965 have suggested that for maximaliearn-

ing to take place, the crucial issue is hOW the individual pupil is

treated in his School--including how he is either promoted or retained--

rather than the adoption of one policy or another. They call for (a)

humane treatment of each pupil as a person of value, and (b) crentive

provision of appropriate learning tasks in which the indiVidual pupil can

'experience success. To assure these conditions, the role of the educator

who works with each pi)Il is no less critical than that of the policy maker.

Numerous specific strategies for facilitating- -but not guarantee-

ing--mixiMal. learning have been described in recent research liwrature,

and many developments and propce,ali have been in the daily news in 1973.

Some of the strategies most recently initiated in the School District of

Philadelphia are highly consistent with the research findings and hold

promise of helping to :.peed the day when the promotion/retention policy

question will have been outgrown.

0

BEST COPY NAILABLE

THE PROMOTIOU/RETLNTION DILEMMA:.

04HAT RESEARCH TELLS US

Unless a youngster is exposed to meaningful .

ftees-&t--e--1ve-4-4441-44-4a=otionalIy______and mentally prepared to handle, the question ofwhether or not he Is promoted should not become amajor issue; promoted or not he will benefit verylittle from school curricula. It may well be, then,that educationally disadvantaged students . . .

should be promoted providing tte,re is the leastk evidence of sincere effort. Uevertheless, the

advisability of awarding automatic promotions toeducationally disadvantaged students should hardlybe considered an irrelevant or peripheral question;instead, it defines the core of the larger c.,-*Iensiewe are likely to face in the near future.

Perhaps sooner than Daniel Levine realized when he wrote those

words In 1966, the School District of Philadelphia is facing-that "larger

challenge." The.findings of research into the effects of promotion to

the next grade or retention in the same grade can probably be understood

best when seen in historical perspective.

1291_4 the Promo Dilemma Developed

Historically, mastery of each school grade's tasks was con-.

sidered prerequisite to success in the next grade's tasks. Pupil:.who

demonstrated such mastery were. considered qualified for promotion; those

who did not meet the standard could either try again (repeat the year's

work) or give up .(drop out of school).

The high-school diploma was acteptdd as evidence that a person

had distinguished himself from those who, for various reasons, had not

attained the prescribed .levels of mastery in their prescribed annual

P

6

I

acach;mic tasks. Furthermore. bocause they had not eNerclsed their ppii

of dropping out, the pupill in 'any classroom Were preisumed tti k, there

.because they wanted tp succeed in their current year academic tasks.

r. But what about the _unsuccessful pitpils, whOse formal education

ended short of graeuation? k growing concern that theyand various

other segments' of :.r piety- -were beinddisadvantagediby their nongradua-

' tion teS to a "keep *h.::m In school" campaign, which: resulted in legisia-

Lion requiring unsuCcessful, pupils to remain in school (the scene ofr

:

Telt* failures) until reaching a specified chronological age. :Thus the

concernor "education for all, whether they want it or not" forced

educators to continue working with the unsuccessfuland unwilling--

elouplA asrepeaters'instead of ignoring them as dropouts.

Finding their classrooms occupied by pupils whom they had not

succes ally educated in previOus years; teachers could respond variously

to the p oblem. Irresponsible teachers could ignore the special needs

of the repeaters; conscientious teachers could try to make the repeated

year a more fruitful learning experience. than the pupils' earlier attempts

had been'. However, for the irresponsible the ignored problems did not

go away, and even for the conscientious there was a far less than satis-

factory rate of improvement emony the repeaters.

a

t.t

cy.....2Ly1221 rmo t ion

The apparent futility of using nonpromotion as a remedial

treatment in cases of academic failure was noted in our School District's

research. bulletin, "School Failure --A Summary of Research Findings," in

May 1965:

f

tt.S1 COPY MUM7

Grade repetition, parti.culdr,ly in the earlygrades, not only fai,ts to help ti,e mejority ofpupils academiclily, but, in mny cases, createsadditional problems. Factors.involived in a student'sfailure vaty from school to sChouli

The major problewl.; of grade reecttltioo are that .

the studeitt is older and Weer than his classmates,t and that his ability. InclUding leis learning rate,

is generally below the class average.

.Ieveral studies have revealed definite r.ddtion-ships between school retardation:""nd delinquency.

'.. For youth who have already experienced a poor familylife, school failure may provoke resentment.

Yet in particular Situations In the senior highschool and vocational progfaps, arbitrary minimumstandards must be set for ss le skills to protectlife or to at speciffc care demands.

Generallyikthe 1965 findings have been confirmed by more recent1

Idies. For examp14, a follow-up of 1968-1969 first graders In

tit ucky--where the ilfirst-grade retention rate is higit--led to the con-

clusiir\I that "a your ster who attempts first grade twice is not nubstan-

tiallyetter off thfn he was the first time." In a Wisconsin study of

more that 600 metrcayolitan high-school students repeating an entire grade

(8, 9, 10,,or 11)/although the whole-grade repeaters geneially improved

their marks in/subjects they had previously failed (and 1n mathematics

and science subjects they had already passed), the amount of improvement

during the second year was judged "hardly sufficient to justify a whole

year's extra work."

In otherstudies it was found that (a) marks in repeated sub-

jects tend to be lower than those in subjects taken for the first time,

(b) failure can cause forgetting of material that was once learned, ,arid

(c) tht threat of failure does not increase the rate ef educational gain.

of pupils who are threatened.*

t

K

Thus repedting a year's work dot., not assure the overcomiing

of a deficiency in academic achievement. While Jome pupils may coOtiue

to pain during their second year in nny grade, the average gain of the'

repeaters ;5 less (so....tirTN!s by 4-our to six months) than that of equally

deficient .pupils who ore granted conditional drovoTien. Furtherwore,

achtievcmtnt-test. scores of many reta'ned pupils have been found to

decrease during the year after.rete an.

The damaging effects of nonprowtion arc believed to result

not from the repetition itself, but from "the stigma,of nonpromotion,

the iwpairment of morale, and the exposure to the same inappropriate

methods that previously led to failure."

The contention that a policy of nonpromotion would help schools

to "maintain. standards" is refuted by evidence that (a) greater achieve-

ment has been found in situations where the promotion policy is lenient

than where it is rigid, (b) the presence of a large number of retained

pupils in a classroom can lower the work standards for the class as a

whole, (c) excessive failures may merely indicate that inappropriate

standards arc being applied, and (d) in thtir eagerness to pass rather

than fail, weak pupils are tempted to bean e "answer grnhbers" and "teacher

pleasers" rather than genuine achieveYs.

To thotte.,°Mlo suggest that nonpromotion of unsuccessful pupils

would aid learning by establishing more hoLtiljeneous groups of pupik, it

must be said that, to whatever extent such homoneneous grouping is

possible, it tends to put low achitvees of All sort-, together. This often

leads to uniform treatment regardless of the reasons for deficiency, and

tends to deprive therm of the stimulation to Eh. wined frcm more capable

pupils who could be their examples and helpers. In practice, hoft-ogencous

a9

qrouping ;).c.,-EJ on acacle:r:Ie ability is impossible with self-contained

classroof s. because nor even tne average pupil in the 9roup is achieving

at the sank level In all subjects. A high rare of nonpronnt ion has been

found not to reduce sicolficantly the range of individual abilities. with

which the teacher must. deal in the classrooi'. Even after retentioe, the

104 achievers are still generally ahead of their peers physically and

behind them academically.

Although a cuse-and-effect re'ationship has not been clearly

established, failure to be promoted has been found to be associated with

a negative self-concept, and elenentary-school pupils whaehave failed

more than once tend to have a more .negative self-concept than those who

have been retained only once. Low seif-concept has been found to inter-

fere with scholastic motivation, especially among pupils from lower siacio-

'economic backgrounds and minority groups.

Compared'wl.th their "soc:ally promoted" peers, nonpromoted

pupils "show more symptoms of social and emotional maladjustment, are

more often socially rejected by their new classmates, and are more often

"-viewed unfavorably by thelt wahhers." Pupils who .view their nonprnmotion

as a "vote of no confidence" td to doubt\their own ability to achieve

and, therefore-i tend to put fortfi,ess than their best efforts.

negative attitudes toward sebool abound among the nonprobleted.

Daydreaming and apathy, frequently observed,bare believed to Le mechanisms

of self-defensb-egainst the ego-shattering effects of d full awareees

by the pupils of their having been branded failures.

Failure is self-perpetuating; its effects are cumulative.

Repeated failure tends to induce expectation of further failure. A la.441,

REST COPY AVAII.ABIF10

o- He ,d Start perils found; even in early childho,.,d, "a eyeleS

of frustration and failure in whica the child'', academic delicits become.

cu,,.ulative." An Ariionastudy of minority-group clement :ry-school peens

noi.,_d that "each year of acculmlating regression carries with it a glow

ing indifference to learning."

Numefous other studies have dcrY istratcd the direct relatien:

ship between nonpromotion and the tendency t.6'-drop out of schcol before

graduation. A Michigan study of school dropoutfirmed that

The effects of early school failure experi ces havelong -term .consequences for both a child's su equentachievement in school and eventual mental health. .

It appears th51. the great majority 5f school leavergdrop nut because they sirply cannot toleraie morefailure and the commensurate feeling-. of low self-worth and self-esteem.

Overall, the evidence continues to point sfronely to the con-

elusion that we cannot rely upon nonpromotion in itself to improve school

achievement. A nonprorrotion policy assures neither more subject-matter

mastery nor more rapid progress than social promotion, and usually cause%

pupil motivation to deteriorate.

The Other rxtreme-.-Promotion for All

Long before all those studiet, were coopleted, the pendulum .of

educational practice was swinging from the one extreme of rigid prowotion

requirerents to the opposite extreme of automatic promotion for all

pupils annually, regardless of their rata of learning or their degrc-e of

subject-matter mastery. however, automatic promotion has failee to prove

itself the easy panacea for which its proponeuts had hoped. Some or Lite

problems evident in nonpro-ntion remain uncured by autoreqic promotion;

others hive been rietelv teplaLd by a-dilfvrent set of probicms.

Lducationallv disadvanted youth have been found to learn best

in an environrent that is structured and consistent. A study of inner-

city schools sponsr,d by the. Council for basic Education has found

automatic promotion harmful in.that It cirJes nut enuender self-confidence

that is- l'aLied on dern5trated pert:Ono! co,-)cttince. To unperceptive

pupils, promotion obtainod without effort can give a false estimate of

their ability; to the disillusioned, it i5 less than an earned reward.

For the sponsors of cof-,ensatory educational programs, auto-

matic prom otion removes a major incentive for their efforts to enable

the4iisadvantaged to succeed in academic competition: if there is to be

no competition, poor academic preparation -is no disadvantage. For tihe

educator, also, there is a temptation to feel less than "accountable"

for the: performance of pupils who he knows will be promoted regardless

of how wt211 or how pc,orly they achieve during the current year.

Even when he is "socially" promoted, the inadequately achieving

pupil still tends to be raladjusted and at the bottom of his class

scholastically. And even when his individual learning experiences are

'adapted to his abilities he may find the classrowl nrota activities

frustratingly Jileyond.his ability to cope. Insistence that a pupil under-

take an educational task (such as learning to read) for which he if. still

develop' .molly "unready" has been found to create eidotional blo,kint) and

apathy that ran hinder future efforts. Compared with pupils who are

retained in tn.! same grade for a second year, -,ociolly prorwted puoil5

have shown a greater tendency (a) to feel inadequate among their peers,

(b) to cheat (c) to be unhappy about low marks, and (d) to feel onwanted

at home.

ti

12

O

_ BEST COPY WM r

Oppo:.-uts of,iiete.itie promotion quc.tion the desirability ,t

doryito arty mil the "right" to fail during childhood, 1c:5i he face

problems in adult life iii thous havinj learned either (a) whot he is

individually Al( and unc;ble to do, or (b) how to &al effectively with

the (7:eiierietTZe of failino..,

Possibly the r:nrt vigoro*objectors to a policy of social

prometion are tho50 who sec it as impliKing a lack of standards in the

evaluation of pupil achlevetrent. Although their objections tend to he

based on something other than empirical research findings in favor of

retention, they do lead to a questioning of the meaning or value of the

high-school diploma. Despite their acknowledgment that pupils differ

widely in the ability to profit from formal education, they see something

incongruous about a high-school graduate who still reads like the average

third grader.

The objectors can cite more solid evidence that automatic prefno-

tion does not eliminate the inadequate achievers' proneness to dissatls---faction, truancy, and dropping out of school.

Overall, the evidence leads to the conclusion that automatic40

promotion does not bring automatic freedom from problems in scholastic

achievement or in personaliuocial adjustelent. But in terms of its effect

on the unsuccessful pupil!, themselves, a policy of automatic promotion has

been found somtihat 1/2;1=21illa!=a than a policy of automatic retention.

A Diler, be,ond

The a-bivalence of the finding:, reported in research litereture

sugger.ts that the "hest" promotion policy is yet to Le discovered, perhepl.

P

i

O

sailcwhore between thy! extreme policies of automatic retention of deficient

pupils and automatic promotion of all pupils. At least, neither of these

extrwes has rov$9 to be either the "making" of American education or

its undoing. Were it otherwise, our dilemma would 'lave been Solved ion!)

before 1973.

The literature suggests that the failure of either policy to

gain pei-manent acceptance is largely the result of the individual differ-

ences that exist among pupils. It has been found that retention in a

grade because of- inadequate achiivement is not simply the oppositeof

prdmotion based on success, but rather has effects that are qualitatively

differmi. There is evidence, also, that individuals' reactions to

failu-e alt.. more var'ed than their reactions to success: su i -different

reactions as' aggression, megression,-hiechanical repetition, 'freezing,"

skeuticism, and panic are not unusual.

Different strategies for remediation have'been fouilii necessary

in dealing with acadeinic deficiencies stemming from different causes.

Pupils suffering respective(y- from inadequate earner inftfuction, poor

study habits, dislike of a subject, and general slowness in !darning, arc

unlikely to be helped by identical tre#tnent of any sort, wiireaicr it

includes dlomotion or retention. Differences in educational-needs among' .

-individual pupils must be met, regardless of the particular school's

grOupin and promotion'policy. These differences arc apparent'only to

person!. who are in close contact with the individual pupils.

Where the goal of education is maximal learning by 'each pupil,

the key question is no longer, "Should academically deficient pupils be

promoted or refaineeil They can learn.or remain illiterate under either

-

J.-

BEST C(fRY At/ AlUIBLE

II

proroJore. Putli;_,r, the Guest ion becomes, "How can the most favorable

learning situation be provided for this pupil?" In answering this lattcr

quLstion, the de,..ision wheth,:r or not to promote the unsuccessful pupil

must be made on an individual basis. Placing hi:1 with the teacher who

will rust effectively interact with him and his unique needs usually is

nose: Important than classifying the pupil's test scores or his chronlog-

ical age.

When maximal- learning is sought, the pupil's own perception

of the situation ;s seen to be more important than administrative con-

venience. The specific context or atmosphere in which the-pupil is

either promoted or retained is more critical than the policy itself.

*This research-based point of view is well summarized in a 1972 textbook

In educational psyology:

it is apparent . . . that there is no readyanswer 0 the question of promotion versus non-

. promotion. What is important pis how the ]'earneris treated. ffromoted or retained2 he is not tobe branded a chronic failure, not to be compared_with others who are not really his peers, is to behelped and listened to; and should-be encouragedand understood rather than being "beaten down" moreand more at home as well as at school.

Some Possible Stratenies

The key to attaining the goal of maximal learning far every

pupil is to he found not in general statements of policy but in the

atmosphere of each school, in the instructional practices in each class-

room, and in the interaction (relationShip and communication) between the

teacher and each pupil.

Maximal learning can take place where there are (a) manifest1..

f

15

acl.nf,41cd9nt of tho value of each pupil as a iNrsun, and (b) manifest

concern Par his wly.inal learning through individually appropriate learn-

tng -tasks In which he can experience success. The former is basically

a matter of practicing good hui:ian relations; the latter calls for creative

ways of teaching pupils who do not learn adequately when taught by more

conventional methods.

Such terms as "individualization," "diagnostic and prescriptive

teaching," and "individually proscribed instruction-(1P1)" denote some

specific approaches to reducing the pupil fellure,rate. They are based

on the finding that success in small tasks is more inspiring than failure

in larger ones. Using thiS approach, the teacher aims to counteract in-

effective-behaviors'by arranging progressively more difficult tasks in

which the pupil can succeed. The personal satisfaction to be derived

from such successful achievement- -not mere praise for effortseems

especially important in the child's early elementary- school years.

The attitudes of pupils, teachers, and parents are crucial if

retention -in- grade is to be interpreted constructively. If promotion and

retention are to be viewed not as reward and punishment, but rather as

alternative.placemonts for maxiral learning, all three groups must be

heipcd.to understand them as such. Close communication between school

and home can aid this understanding. Our School District's current Pupil

Progress Reporting Improvement Project (PPR1P), using narrative report-

cards and teacherparent conferences, bolos both teachers and parents to

understand the child's educational development and the role that the

school is seeking to play-in it. This deeper understanding can help to

overdome the potentially, traumatic effects If retention is later found

- advisable.

4

BEST COPY PARABLEfb

.

fi the pupil is to repeat a grade, it usually is better for

him to hove d different teacher for a "fresh start." In any case, the

first year's teacher should be careful not to appear to have lost faith

in th; unsuccessful pupil; otherwise, it would,4e.difficutt for the pupil

tai accept retention asbelpg best for him. if the deficient pupil is

promoted, his new teacher should do whatLver is possible to eliminate

his stress and anxiety in the new classroom where most of his classmates

will outperform him.

Recognizingthat neither universal promotion nor excessive

retention is -a satisfactory policy, many school systems seek a compromise

between thosz extrerncs. One such plan is the setting orminimum standards

for each grade but not applying them to any pupil who is already two years

behird his age-mates. New York City schools have recently specified a

limit of one year's retention in the elementary grades and one in the

secondary grades, and the provision of "fndividbally prescribed programs"

for repeaters, based on their individual deficiencies. Such "compromise"

policies are consistent with the research finding that, if absurd extremes

are avoided,lexact grade placement in itself tends. to have little effect

on a child's educational development during a_given schOoryear.

Ideally. the avoidance of failOre is a worthy goal. It is--, ,

attainable,when each pupil's program, pace, and learning tasks ari!.

approprite to hip present state of readiness, and whfli early.identifica-.

ti9n of a learning difficulty is followed by swift and effective treat -

rt

ment. in.practice, most schools' mhy. need to settle for a policy generally

favoring promotion, but allowing occasional purposeful _retention in the

primary grades. Our School District's recently annoenced "checkpoint

17

c,ntor." it a soundly b,,ed effort to provide the desirable early identi-

fic,tion and pr,-!pt ren.dil1 treatmnt.

School counselors can continue their contribution to failure-

deduction as they guide pupils in the setting of realistic (attainable)

academic and eilreer goals. Flexible scheduling also, can enable margin;11

pupils to take some subjects in which they are interested and can taste!

success even.if their other subjects are more difficult'.

Complete alternative programs, likewise, can encourage success

by making the euucatlonal experience relevant. to the pupils' diverse needs

and interests. Our School District has recently extended the avallahility

of alternative programs to elamentary-school pupils.

In its 1973 Ieport, the National Commission on the Reform of

SeCondary Education, privately supported by the Kettering Foundation, has

proposed a reduction of the compulsory attendance age (now 16 in most

states), to lh, stating, "If the high school is not to be a custodial .

institution, Lite state must not force adolescents to attend." Such a

plati if adopted, could allow unsuccessful or uninterested pupils to

seek 'Whatever experiences they consider more relevant or more conducive

to their success, leaving high school to the more willing and scholastjc-4

ally ahie pupils.

A nongraded orgenization has been tried in varLeus settings as

a way of de-er,ph4sizing promotion rind thus avoiding or reducrng the

problems inherent n the prorction/retention dilemml. Nongradcdpess-

makefi the question of promotion or nonpromotion obsolete. Children do

not get promoted from grade to grade, nor do they repeat grades, because

there ire no grades as such.

A A

/;"

,.

BEST COPY MAILABLE

In cornatison with ovvrage pupils in a graded organization,

overal pupils in a nenciri.Jcd situation have shown greater conceptual

maturity, more participation in group activities, and a greater tendency

to "contributingr,embers of their classes. Although results at higher

grade-levels have been somewhat equivocal, and although organizational

structure does not in itself assure attainment of objccti'ves, nongraded-

Hess has been used successfulli-in the primary grades.

One publicized example of a nongraded program Is the McKinley

School Project in Warren, Ohio, where nongradedness has been combined

with team teaching in an effort to overcome some of the disadvantages

of the self-contained classroom. A promislhg development in our own

School District in 1973 is the establishment of nongraded instruction in

a number of elementary schools where five, slx, or seven years will be

"considered a "normal" period for completing the program. Under this plan

the slower learner,,can progress at his own pace without the trauma of

formll, conspicuous retentjons.

Anrathe4constructive development stemming from our Schoolt.

District's acknowledgment that individual pupils differ from one another

Is a gradually changing emphasis In the use of standardized test results.

There appear to be a decreasing concern for und-of-yeair statistjcs,.and

a growing feeling that teachers. should have"the test results in. time tp

use them in planning the lessons that will be most appropriate for their

pupils. Our DeceSer 1973 achievement testing is part of an exploratory

move, in this direLtion.

Unfortunately', thr; problem of evaluating the high-school diploma

Is not eased by a school system's provision ofekigly diversified programs

19

ilJi..jdue,ii,cd expectations of puoils' prowel.s. One ..ufplestion in7

thi, hz41, been offereJ in 1973 by the Pennsylvvia Citizens'

Ccl,risien on 1;a...ic Education. Decrying a "custodiali apploach to educe-

!

bon, the com-lisgion has proposed that the high-schuoil diploma be replec.NI

with an "exit certificate" Oich would include an indication of the

specific level of academic proficiency'attained by the individual pupil.

Even with the implementation of these and'otherdencuuraging

strategies, there arc sociological- reasons to believe that urban education

will continue to face an uphill struggle ford long time. A 1958 study

found that nonpromoted pupils tend to come from culturally deprived homes..

A 19/1 study of Aexican American, American Indian, and black pupils in

fiVe southwestern states indicated,that the members of minority groups

have a greater tendency than other pupils to repeat grades.% A University:

of Wisconsin analysis of 1960 census data revealed that a pupil's rate

of progress. in school Is closely related to his age, race, sex, rural/7

urban status, parents' income, and especially parents' education.

Such findings li-ad to the observation that the variables most

closely related to children's progress in school are demographic factors.

which are quite beyond the control of the pupils themselves. FurthermOre,

except as long-term evolution may change the home conditions in the

community, these factors are also beyond the cortrol of the schools' policy,

makers.

In the meantime, the schoOls can strive to provide the supportive

therapy of a personalized educational experience for every pupil. At this

point in.c;Ur School District's history, it appears that another swing of

the promotion-policy pendulum --back toward stricter r !qui rementsmight

OtWt---.

-a

OF

REST COPY IMMO24.

'Sc

scrv: !..y.,kai owlet- whin our Zedl for effectb education

can b.- t:.n.:vd._ i t Jovn vAus.! is nfJt 001.troyed by the fact that a

strict rotentidn p()Iity in it!.nlf has. been found soLhmhot less offective

than it policy favnring social Ontion.

Even if-Tcsparch found it to be less than idial, no slogan

can "all bad" if it.s.use os a rallying cry indirectly facilitates the

really effective.classroom conditions under which each child rs stimulated

to attain his own highest pot.sible level of achievement. After all, as

research tells.us, how the pupil' is promoted or retained, is more Important

than wh.lther.he is.II,-

P

a

11.1 itt.U. l',11,11";

Arif:ona S; IR,Iwat.p-qi: of PW01,- :n-itru-tion. A 2"<`:`n-t rJr!!;ric.

inf.tv!.'ion. Pionostix,. -r.;.:!on.1:: Ato,,.

1:0!trneti0ne.bocor.bor 13,!1)041 (01 )

Ausubele D.P !2(1,:c.Ylinn,..1. (.0:n'tivo t'.w Yc,3 ::!VAL, Prn.nart & 194.4.1.

Avsubell'D.1;., 4 Roth scan, P.G.introaqctixm t-;.

14nWilpmj.r:,vchefllar.1.11nw York: holt, ,Rivi:harr & Win: Acne'19U9. Pp. 256-:e54..

Blair' C..e Jonc4, R.S., & SimpfAone R.H. viTcholocw.(3rd ed.) Mcw,Yorkr Pp. 1M51.7553.

}frown' V.I. A survey. of w7114twv. urobiems in ollemental, cauvation.firs t tot., nglana: Bri2101 Univerf:i.ty'Inst*tute of. Edu6Ation,1966. (ERIC KA039053)

!Wet, L. City to end antvatic promotion'oc pupils ire new reading drive.-Nev Yoii Tir-13e Decembee'3, 1973.

Comission on Civil' 5J.Ights. The unfinished education: Cutcomes forminorities in the five.:4outhweztern f:tates. EacipAalmrican'Oducational r;otisse Rcoort #MARS-II, 1q71.- (ERIC LD056821)

etplisk, i. Detormirantn of, schr;o1 onrollnit:nt and school rierfnrmanc.Mason, Wincont:in: EILS, t Esr i ty oi Wi5consin Infltitute forResearch On Poverty, 1 `167. (ERIC'ED012011)

Cronbach, Bilgarcl, t Spalding, W.B. rduCAtonll(2nd rdi) Vew Yorksillrcourt, Brace & World, F'63. P. %:(7.

l'As:nberg, L. Sont2 cliil4r,.n arc. conv.fheed 4/ can't win. Raltiniornsbaltiwore Public f;chovIct Project 1967.(L.21C ED0211)2)

Ellonburq, r.c. Pecrmit repi15 tm railt Cie-fritter Hewn, 1972, 461 (9)553-555. (ELTC wo53407)

13:11:&)lodif:11 of q-pic:ation. 0:111Ne.w York: ii:)1.te instun, 14 2.1n-245.

21

1

4

*Oh

J.

OW UM AMBLE

3

. ; ;. !4. . i .:4 : .t. 4-1., -1. _ .

1, -e `; . ; ! se. ! L. c . ..1 ft.t t ::t 11 .1 t ; t ,..' .1 : r:4 i tic tl 1.42410. ittea t.1470. C.RIC

fl':(.:, 1-;r*..in, .n.,41:41 : .1#10--tV. 14.;14..r-on ..1 i .: ; . t i verri 1.1'

Cr,! tc9. 0; t tli , I ": fr.ftiC trip: l:1141)

fi

A . 1'.1tscat :::..r.holr..v. (Zia (41 ) Mr111243-:44!+.

. ):/rolic.4tion Lcaches. chi 141on they its r .1-__Anca1 fin1:2C9, at', 3, 3S-3'.. (ER4C'FJ030(340)

COI-eel I it..T.IZ. On the va 1 fiti.ty of r.:J:4e-A-01;:sotion .1f: an Pdtient onnt rro:. lts re .Madinon, Wisco=ins Unive,nlity of W1:4(.:4.44nin, 1N01.(ERIC D0:1no13.)

Garr k, & Kinqaley, 11.1.. The ha tor And en-litll Lions Of 1.irts1(3rd (Id. ) Ency,leav,od Jet: id:y: 1170.P. 211 .

Godfrey, E. The trcody of failure. Education DiLwnt, lq77, 17, 5, 34-35.(I :r= EJ051419)

Hntwlenc*, D.E. /ifff.rttif t:4r1y- school failure (40nrienee5 on elf-imige rdevelopnent and fmrlicationq for school counselort. Paperprgonty at mi.,:tin4.of the Ancrican F4Jeation.11kesParch AssocLiation, Chirralo,:Aor,t1 1972. Whir 7D1626&,)

W

llowtitorne 1).t`tirtaltst A chit tignIze t rorietv. rnoxvill, trennelisesOccuret-ivnail ..And lkvelorsatterst. -0.1r.reli slating

Unit, 1C7. (2`,Te nt)021.6,1;)

& Is. I . :f411;.) ir iotr; ft; "4-71 f-c-Nrs. .4 .1

tht.1,1-/. Faci : C) Li forki.as coutiye:44t- ;1.44 :It -;,4111c; Co.,!v; 66-75.

D.U. 1`.1 sina st.:1'11 11; in t!:f i.v (f1ntsr.bt.s. IL ;t Olt, I).' : eLlt1f1;:i.1 t C i ducat 1 %NA,.(I:hTi..! C1.102820;0

it..ttividLlii.% 2' ittr,teuct4nnI :.:1 i .1: for i;ct tt r

1967. 1:1)

t

alb

91,

fr

! I::,

BEST COPY AMEX

; : 1.. in 1 %, ,Inca--; 1. ,

:4 r at Olt.!*;" tis -.13 t" A:-:.017

riele tfir IA I/1;f 17: . P') I)

C.1. for .1.0looln. Yo.::

2,9

WiLietnol of !%-liluic-9

Natimi:s1 1:.10::at;..;t i-.F hv,0777)

D.T., et 110, nlacomt.It :-.tudcntr viahl

thrri!

cuctfti!evina4r/a mos ea .4 4140 411441.0

Volutis 1 augi r

of rdocation,y)70.

anntul : rinetti-on A .J ri t tqlt

ilia/. 1. tiai;!sitla, U.C.

(ER1 C CD057U68 an 11057060

L.C.:

oft ice

School District of ExT;:rtmint of Str-,rintendence, Diviuityn.

of Eitnestional !ze,rch. t:ctiF,ot summtry of resarch

finer r,, Bul1tiu 58d. VoIlLdolpIlla: !dchool liv.:trict of

19:)5. EtX101637)

Schwartz, L.L. Education41 mycholoW: rocus on the leainor. Boston.:

liolbrobL Press, 1972. Pp. 43S-437.

SeLfqoc, M.V. The 1TIERAy2.twocems nnd school 1)%tico. Scranton,

Penttsylvaniat 117i. Pp. 74-77.

et

Shapiro, H.S. Sweeping r-forms on rcnools urged. PhiladeTtitia Innuimr,.K% 611 asp. 4..

Novvrbcr 25, I.:73.

Smilb, F.W., rremic, S.W., Jr., & Atkinnon, M.M. 'Mu% rdneatror's oncycint,.91i.a.

Englamood Cliffs, How Jert..eyr Prentie,-Nn11, 1(.411. f.

Street, P., & Leigh, T.. -Suffer the: little Kentucky fimt-qraitrs.

Rub.,;.0 nt Frho-.1 LqUeltin, V.071, :14 (3) , %-ln.

(t:!-1C: E.i37281)

Strt7.4 K.D. 0!. Enol.w.(1 Cliff's, Mew Jmvs

Vrentic%:-lisll,

p. f:.Liolo to cha:0: for the .ouick an i this :dow.

Ir. II: t: 311,.....* -

INN COM Ml

I.

-24 .

'1 : t t'' CtIr 1 t I. I ( 41.1

!. .-. ..v tto.. :11 I p (3),

Tr.4". r 14'11 ItIc" !.f 1 t f t.: ti ..11,. . . .

Pe`1111;:y i:s ct: I " ..10tto .:4 /O. iti- 300.

VOW it FAX., & Paret, 'VA . i ow-12i of fc-vri of sellooloff_I.itt; tt jor ; :trod itannual. Lin$ ihcf. A:nor

,rtutyv .19k...t. (ERIC 111' 1'')

I.

1L'W i Lore to 1) :' promoted it nit rt 1. f-reir*of 1.amix 010iAmtary E1f-!!:0Lir" :(!:101Ct.riaince /lino, 1'173, 7 (3) 17. I ::!:'

.4

"