Apparently my Ed Next article on the continuation of Chicago's social
promotion ban is being revisited in light of NYC Chancellor Klein's
recent announcement that he is ending social promotion even more than
he already did -- most notably by one George Schmidt (read here). George tries hard to find fault with my reporting and analysis, but in this case at least makes more mistakes than he finds. He misses the main point of the piece (I'm explaining, not defending, student retention), and doesn't even realize that he's reading something written more than three years ago (Retaining Retention).
All that aside, what do you think? Would you rather go back to the old days? Has it gotten better or worse in the way it's implemented over the past 10 years -- in terms of who's held back and what happens to them? Does it have any effect on the kids who don't want to be retained? How has the modified system worked, with the school-based input and the appeals process?
Filed under: Teachers & Teaching