Is There School Retention in the 21st Century?
By Deborah Pack – Principal, Kiln Creek Elementary
As we near the end of another school year we are faced with the decision to promote or retain our students. Some school divisions embrace the idea, saying that children can benefit academically by repeating a grade. On the other hand, some others refer to the practice of retention as “educational malpractice.”
According to Charles Thompson, director of the North Carolina Educational Research Council, “It’s pretty clear that… just running students through the grade another time doesn’t help too much. It is probably even destructive.” If we expect students to change, we must change what we are doing.
Studies currently available show that between 30-50% of all students are retained at least once by the time they are in ninth grade. If we seriously consider these statistics, we must begin to plan a different course to assist students before they fail.
Students need remedial intervention, not “another year.” The current movement in schools toward RTI or Response to Intervention may just be the key to preventing large numbers of students needing to repeat a grade in school. Teachers and student support personnel are sitting down frequently to plan systemic, research-based instruction and interventions to struggling learners. The RTI process is highly dependent on progress monitoring and data collection. RTI plans will go with students to the next grade. This information will assist the new teacher in designing appropriate interventions to continue to help the student progress. Some schools are providing remedial help before or after school, summer school, Saturday school, or by using trained instructional aides working within the regular classroom.
If students do not adequately respond to targeted interventions the students may need to be considered for special educational services under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA).
March 26th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I agree Deborah.
RTI helps teachers begin to think like “specialists”. We have found this to have a major impact on our students at South Morrison. By focusing on student performance data from benchmarks, PALS, and teacher-made assessments on a consistent basis we can tailor instruction to meet the needs of our students. It’s really feels great to see parents, teachers, and interventionists smile because “Met Goals” boxes are checked during child study and daily data conferences!
March 27th, 2009 at 8:00 am
I think we’ve called “RTI” many other names (depending on your school), but the concept has been around awhile. I believe many of us feel that retention, without focused interventions/differentiated instruction, is useless. Without “RTI” students continue to struggle on the very same concepts that held them back the first time.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:30 am
If 30-50% of our students are destined to fail without interventions or remediations, what does that say about what we are expecting of them in the first place? Interventions and remediations, while well intentioned, are still reactive actions. I wonder what this whole issue might look like if we view it through the lens of proactive action.
Are we really using what we know about human growth and development when we design buildings, curricula, schedules, and assessments? Do we use current research to make decisions that are in the best developmental interests of our students? Are we working with our natural systems–cognitive, emotional, physical–to craft appropriate expectations, assessments, and instruction? I think not. In fact, the more we know, the less we use it to inform our actions.
Until we begin to honor each individual and his or her unique way of being in the world, the numbers are destined to remain as they are.
We each bring strengths to the table. We are born as ‘learning individuals.’ What might this retention issue look like if we worked from students’ strengths instead of from their deficits? How would schools be better if we committed to incorporating what we know about learning–how to cause it to happen, how to support it, how to assess it–instead of just doing more of what works against our nature?
March 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I agree with Kathleen that we need to ensure that our proactive work drastically reduces the number of students in need of support “after the fact.” But what happens to the students who aren’t “getting it” even after instruction is tailored to meet their individual needs? I believe part of that answer lies in the power of 21st Century technologies. In what new and different ways will educators be able to tap students’ interests and capitalize on their unique styles of learning? Will such technologies help make “retention” obsolete? Can we honestly say we are harnessing the power of existing technologies toward that end? Are we aware of what’s currently available, or of what is in the pipeline ready to be released? I believe we owe it to our students to know…and perhaps we need to invite students to join this conversation. They often know a great deal more about emerging technologies than we do…
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I agree. I know first-hand that focused interventions in the RTI process can help to avoid retention. At Riverside, teachers have referred students who are in jeopardy of being retained to child study. As a result of the RTI process, both instructional staff and parents are better focused on addressing the student’s unique needs.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
I believe that it’s not right to promote a child who is not ready for the next level. The student can benefit academically from repeating. I partially agree with Mr. Charles Thompson, just running a student through the grade can be destructive. Where I disagree is teacher does not necessarily need to change. Outside of the school environment could be the reason for a student to fall behind. A student held back needs to be evaluated and see where change is needed. The blame for a student’s failure cannot be solely placed on the teacher. Retention used correctly is not “educational malpractice.” I was not held back in elementary school and I believe that was “educational malpractice” for allowing me be promoted when I was not ready.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I think that RTI not only prevents retention, but it also prevents mislabeling students. RTI is “designed to assess whether a student may be under achieving because of a variety of conditions other than a within-child problem(such as a disability)”.(Moore-Brown) True 21st century schools will have less students held back as well as less students being mislabeled. The traditional way of testing students and or providing extra services occurs only after the student has failed. By the time the student has failed, it is extremely difficult for them to catch up with their peers. I don’t think that RTI will eliminate all retention and mislabeling problems, but I do think that it will have an impact on 21st century classrooms.