Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
It has been suggested that this article should be merged with ], which is roughly the opposite of social promotion. (] - <small>''']'''</small>)
It has been suggested that this article should be merged with ], which is roughly the opposite of social promotion. If a student does not qualify for special education, it means that student does not need help. It's that simple. (] - <small>''']'''</small>)
Does each school take one policy? Social promotion or retention? Does every state have to pick one policy? Is that why it is such an controversial topic? (Cutefuzziebear)
Education policy in the U.S. is generally the responsibility of each state. So, at the first cut, yes, each state sets it own policy. In reality, states typically allow school districts to decide on such matters, which is why Chicago and New York City schools were able to, on their own, change their policies in this area without other school districts in the state doing so.
And no, it's not controversial because of that. It's controversial (this is my sense of the world; I could be wrong) because conservatives have argued "social promotion" is a wishy-washy policy that liberals have implemented because they're not willing to be tough and MAKE kids learn, while liberals (and others) argue that an extreme policy on retention not only doesn't "MAKE" kids learn, it hurts their progress, and that there are studies that so prove. (For the issue of whether scientific studies make any difference in a controversy, see, for example, DARE.) John Broughton20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I wish I could produce the documentation, I'll try to dig it up, but a conservative magazine recently published a list of the 10 "Most damaging books" of the 20th century. It included the predictables: Mein Kampf,The Communist Manifesto, and so forth, but number 6 on the list was John Dewey's Democracy and Education, the seminal text on the notion that it is better to teach analytical skills than facts (to put it coarsely).--Stuart Strahl17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Stuart - I'm not sure what your point is, and I think we're in danger of veering off into territory that has nothing to do with the article on social policy. This page isn't really a good place to debate what teaching should and should not be. John Broughton21:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
My previous comment was intended to point out the degree to which debates about education become controversial. To go back on topic, I would only add that the decision of "social promotion" vs. "retention" not only gets handed down to each school, but often is not even made there. For instance, the school in Vermont where I student taught makes retention decisions on a "case-by-case" basis. The decision-making is highly politicized, and argues such things as the degree to which disabilities may play a role in underperformance and teachers' subjective impressions of likely responses for this student. Stuart Strahl16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Merger
It has been suggested that this article should be merged with grade retention, which is roughly the opposite of social promotion. If a student does not qualify for special education, it means that student does not need help. It's that simple. (209.177.21.6 - Talk)
