The New York Times this week featured a column by Arthur Levine (often a sensible fellow, despite being president of Teachers College) outlining a "third way" on social promotion. Levine contends that "neither social promotion nor holding back students works. Leaving students back increases their dropout rate. . . . Socially promoted students, meanwhile, are unable to learn more advanced material in the next grade and are more likely to become disruptive, diminishing their classmates' ability to learn as well." His solution? Group students not by age and grade, but by academic achievement in specific areas, and be flexible about how long it takes to earn a diploma. In the current system, Levine observes, students "are all expected to learn the same material in 180 days even though they come to school with different levels of ability and experience. Inevitably, some students can't keep up, forcing schools to decide whether to promote them or leave them back." Instead, he believes, the education system should "simply recognize that children learn at different rates." That might mean letting advanced students graduate in as few as 10 years, while slower learners take as many as 14 years to complete their elementary/secondary studies. An interesting idea, albeit one that would mean the total reorganization of American schooling and would give pause to a great many parents wanting to know "what grade" Mandy and Jason are in. It's one that could only work if harnessed to high standards, rigorous assessment, and strict results-driven accountability. Can we count you in, Dr. Levine?
"Failing the grade system," by Arthur Levine, New York Times, September 26, 2004