Talk:Grade retention/Archive 1

Archive 1

Alternatives

Previous editor added a line that easier work does not necessarily prepare a student for secondary-level skills. The implication appears to be that Special Education equates with easier work, which is simply untrue. Special Education consists of teaching specially modified to help a child learn. When properly done, the work is indeed easier for the student, but this does not mean it has less content, only that the content is accessible.

At any rate, such discussions of the manner and nature of special education don't seem precisely relevant to this topic.

Stuart Strahl 13:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger

It has been suggested that this article should be merged with social promotion, which is roughly the opposite of grade retention. John Broughton | Talk 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Another related article is Seat time --orlady 16:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at that article, which had very little useful content. Since it is (as far as I can tell) a colloquial term for social promotion, I put a redirect to that article rather to this one. So there remain only two articles for possible merger. John Broughton | Talk 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

These two concepts are not opposites of each other, and the articles therefore should not be merged. --Error28 04:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes regarding special education....

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)

worldwide view

Removed the statement that special needs programmes are simply easier work. Also removed the unnecessary 'ironic' statement regarding IQ scores. --Brideshead 10:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

UK

The argument about academic steaming being commonplace in UK is simply not true. Here in UK we have a policy of inclusion where all but the most stupid are taught together. We do have some subjects taught in a setting arrangement, but streaming is almost unheard of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.163.88 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

That's very interesting information, and certainly appropriate for the article - if there were a source. Do you have a link or something else that meets the criteria for reliable sources that you could add, either here or directly in the article? -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)