THE PROBLEMS WITH FAILING

February 1999
		The Clinton administration has proposed a ban on social promotion. Should failing students be forced to repeat a grade?

What should be the role of parents? What about skipping grades? International attitudes towards retention? What is the evidence for and against keeping students back? How can teachers identify and help failing students?     Jan.19 , 1999 Full coverage of the State of the Union Address. Oct. 20 , 1998 A background report on education reform. NewsHour coverage of education issues.       The White House. The Department of Education

During his State of the Union Address, President Clinton listed ending social promotion as part of a larger package to improve education in America. However, many studies argue that holding students back puts them at much greater risk for future failure than their equally achieving, non-retained peers. Many education analysts say too many students are already being held back. Lorrie Shepard of the University of Colorado, co-editor of "Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on Retention," says the rates are as high as they were in the 19th century--approximately 25-30% of all students in the US have flunked at least one grade. She points to several studies that show that the stress and loss of self-esteem harms students' academic achievement in the long run. In one study, children said going blind or losing a parent were the only two life events that would be more stressful than being held back. Karl Alexander of Johns Hopkins University, co-author of "On the Success of Failure," takes a different view. He followed 775 students in the Baltimore system for 8 years and concluded that retention supplied the extra time needed by some students to perform at acceptable levels. Alexander argues self-regard is not irreparably harmed, and that retention stops academic free fall. Other educators say the either-or approach misses the point. What is needed, they argue, is early identification of failing students and intervention through tutoring, after-school programs and summer school. With this in mind, the president's education proposal includes tripling the money for summer school and after-school help. But critics say that even the proposed $600 million would not cover the great need for such programs. Their concern is that the president's ban on social promotion would cause harm in inner-city schools, where each year, several students are held back per class, and where money for intervention programs is much more scarce than in the suburbs, where retention is not as big a problem. What do you think? In situations where intervention programs are not viable, should schools hold back failing students, or should they promote them to the next grade? Is this an issue for the Federal government, or should it be up to the local school boards? Your questions are answered by Professor Shepard and Professor Alexander.