Fri 30 Jul 2010
Are “social promotions” the problem or is it the fact that so many students are failing?
Posted by Kathy Staub under NECAP , middle schools , parent involvement , school reformNo Comments
This morning I opened up my newspaper and there was a big headline, ” Hillside student promotions questioned“. According to the article 13% of students at Hillside were “socially promoted” meaning that they went to the next grade in spite of failing grades. McLaughlin had 7.5% and Southside had 4.3%. There were no numbers for Parkside but the previous year there was a 4.2% rate.
Of course this is only a part of the story. We have no idea how many kids were retained in any of the middle schools, or what the circumstances were for these students. Under current policy students can be retained once at elementary and once in middle school. That will change next year due to a new policy passed by the board this year. Students will be able to be held back twice at each level, and heads will roll if they aren’t.
The great thing about data is that it gives you a bird’s eye view of the situation and enables you to see trends. However, in order to really understand the root causes, you need to examine what Dr. Brennan calls the “ground truth”. Dr. Brennan is planning to meet with the Assistant Principals to learn more about these cases.
It may be that a disproportionate number of Hillside parents know that retention in middle school increases the likelihood that a student will eventually drop out of school 19 fold and, when consulted by the school, they insisted that their children be moved forward. And then there is the Hillside parents’ prayer, “If we can just get them to Central, they’ll be fine.”
It may be that lot of kids in Lynn Manning’s class flunked English and they felt that it was more likely caused by the teacher’s personal problems than the kids’ abilities or attitudes, and it would be unfair to sentence a group of 12-year-olds to a lifetime of failure, poverty, and potential incarceration on account of it. Although Debra Langton doesn’t buy that, in this morning’s paper she said, “I don’t see where staff issues had anything to do with the performance of a child.” Seriously?
It may be that a significant number of students have already been retained once in middle school and under current policy they can’t be retained again. Besides, is middle school an appropriate place for a 16-year-old.
When I look at the numbers what I want to know is, why are so many kids receiving failing grades? How do we get more kids to pass?
I looked at the NECAP scores for Hillside and the kids actually do better than the district average in most cases.
Grade 7
| Reading | Level 4 | Level 3 | Level 2 | Level 1 |
| Hillside | 9% | 56% | 23% | 11% |
| District | 5% | 50% | 29% | 17% |
| Math | Level 4 | Level 3 | Level 2 | Level 1 |
| Hillside | 13% | 34% | 23% | 30% |
| District | 10% | 33% | 24% | 34% |
Grade 8
| Reading | Level 4 | Level 3 | Level 2 | Level 1 |
| Hillside | 8% | 49% | 28% | 15% |
| District | 10% | 33% | 29% | 17% |
| Math | Level 4 | Level 3 | Level 2 | Level 1 |
| Hillside | 9% | 33% | 20% | 38% |
| District | 10% | 24% | 24% | 36% |
Level 4=Proficient w/ distinction Level 3=Proficient Level2=Partially Proficient Level1=Substantially below proficient
The flip side of this is why are so many kids passing who have not mastered the skills? However, given Debra Langton’s statements that “They are just not doing the work; they don’t care. At least a consequence could be summer school.” It sounds like this is more about exacting retribution on kids who don’t do as they are told than it is about acquisition of skills or knowledge.
On closer examination of the Grade 8 math scores it is apparent that there is something amiss in Manchester.
| Math | Level 4 | Level 3 | Level 2 | Level 1 |
| Hillside | 9% | 33% | 20% | 38% |
| District | 10% | 24% | 24% | 36% |
| State | 21% | 45% | 18% | 16% |
As you know, the school district wanted to implement a new math instruction program next year, but the school board did not approve it. Something about not having any money. I don’t understand what that $3 million textbook loan is for, if it isn’t for things like this. Right now our middle school math teachers have to put together their own program based on the state standards. They have to develop their own materials and instructional strategies. It can take years to figure out what is effective and what isn’t. With a proven math program, the basics are there and they have already been vetted for efficacy. This way instruction is consistent from classroom to classroom and school to school, and it minimizes the chance that kids will miss a critical concept as they move from grade to grade. As teachers gain more experience they build on it. If a substitute has to come it, it is easier to keep kids on track. Last year at Hillside there were 2 sixth grade teams that each had long-term substitutes in three different subjects.
This is just one more example of the culture clash between the employees of the school district who are focused on improving instruction by getting more professional development and better instructional materials, and the school board who are operating with a world view from 1972.
Personally, I’m tired of these insinuations that the kids are the problem. Our children are not intellectually deficient. They are not the spawn of the devil. We are not raising them like hyenas and all of them, regardless of their circumstances, deserve a shot at a decent education. Our elected officials need to stop blaming the children and fix the system, even though children can’t vote.
Maybe we need to grade the school board before the next election to see if they deserve to be promoted/re-elected.
| A | B | C | D | F | |
| Put modern effective instructional materials into the hands of teachers. | |||||
| Passed policies based on proven 21st Century best practices. | |||||
| Developed a strategic plan for moving the School District into the 21st Century. | |||||
| Built board capacity to govern effectively. | |||||
| Consulted with all stakeholders in developing policies and practices. | |||||
| Remained focused on improving student achievement for ALL children. | |||||
| Acted as champions for children. |



