Talk:Social promotion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

References

Someone added a reference for one of the claims today. Unfortunately, the ref was right back to this article, as the website in question copied the entire Wikipedia article on this subject and pretended that they wrote it! We need independent references from reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

comment

Social promotion is an education policy for special needs students. General education students would meet standards. It's the special needs that don't. That's why they can be promoted. What kind of references do they want? --Tigereyes92 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you've got it entirely wrong. Social promotion is what you do to a nondisabled student who didn't happen to pass classes this year for some reason other than a disability -- like moving repeatedly during a school year, being unable to focus in class because of hunger or family problems, or something like that. So you have a general ed student who did not meet the general curriculum requirements, and you have to make a choice between flunking a perfectly capable student (who just happened to have a bad year), or giving the student a free promotion just so he/she can stay with friends and same-age peers.

A special ed student almost never qualifies for social promotion because their promotion depends entirely on their individualized plan, not on the usual rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

that actually makes sense. its a real shame that general education students don't know how to advocate. they should learn how parents of special needs children do it. Think about it...if they told the school that they needed help during the year...the whole social promotion or grade retention would be useless...they got their help during the year not at the end of the year..these children seriously should get help...if the family ain't feeding them, that would be endangering the welfare of a child...it's about time that people do something about this serious problem.--Tigereyes92 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Image?

What kind of image could we possibly have here? It's not like you can put up a picture of two kids, and say, "This one passed his classes, and that one flunked the classes but got sent to the next grade anyway." I'm inclined to remove the request for the photo unless a specific idea is listed here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

"In the United States, no statistics are kept on retention. For boys and minorities, retention is even more common. Nationally, by the time students reach high school, the retention rate for boys is about ten percentage points higher than for girls. In the early grades, retention rates are similar among white Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans. By high school, the rate is about 15 percentage points higher for African Americans and Hispanics than for whites."

The first sentence says no statistics are kept on retention, but then statistics are given, including the word "nationally" (which seems, from the previous statement about the US not keeping statistics, to imply the United States). If no statistics are kept, how is this possible? Further sections go on to give detailed statistics about specific areas, like NYC.

Sigil93dotNet (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you get that a lot. I call it "self-contradiction". If you care enough about an issue (but aren't "dedicated to reality at all costs", as M. Scott Peck might say), then you won't notice the contradiction. This kind of double talk also appears in 1984 (novel) (see Doublethink).

Let's look into it a bit further. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)