How Political Correctness Weakens Schools by Dueck Jim;

Author:Dueck, Jim;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated

Figure 7.2 Student Retentions after Grade Nine by Birth Month

SCHOOLS PENALIZE ACADEMICALLY STRONG STUDENTS

Unfortunately, there are also negative implications for parents wanting to provide their children with this advantage. The school system is committed to helping weak students to such a degree that it responds with what Michael Fullan called a “moral imperative” to help all who are needy and disadvantaged (Fullan, 2003). Educators commit themselves to raising the achievement levels of all who are struggling in their class. Because the more capable students are not in need of special attention, their needs become secondary, which in turn consigns them to an achievement level below their full potential.

In this relative-age-effect discussion there is little understanding of this “glass ceiling” effect evident in the literature to date. However, in 2011, a study in the United States (Xiang et al.) emerged with the rather catchy promotional statement on the front cover: “The first U.S. study to examine the performance of America’s highest-achieving children over time at the individual-student level.” Contained within the report was an even more probing question which asked, “Do high flyers maintain their altitude?”

This timely report tracked the outcomes of American students who were high flyers initially, but who “fell off the bus” several years later. Specifically, students were tracked by achievement groups with the first group comprising high flyers in Grade 3 and then assessed in Grade 8. The researchers tracked a second group from Grades 6 through 10.

This national report indicated the percentage of students who “lost altitude” from high flyer status between Grade 3 and Grade 8. In mathematics, 43 percent of students descended, while in reading it was 44 percent. In the Grades 6 through 10 study, 30 percent descended in mathematics and 48 percent descended in reading. The report concluded that “descenders” dropped from the 94th percentile to the 77th percentile or from the top 10 percent of their grade to the top 30 percent. Chester Finn, whom Xiang quotes, stated:

If America is to remain internationally competitive with other advanced nations, we need to maximize the potential of our top students. Yet many analysts worry that various policies and programs tend to level student achievement by focusing on the lowest-achieving students and ignoring, or worse, driving resources away from our strongest students.

Finn’s warning and challenge are really an indictment of the social promotion/grade inflation/moral imperative philosophies of our day that inform and inspire decision-makers. No aspect of these well-meaning but errant ideas is more deleterious than the twelve-month, single-date entry cohort concept that functions together in penalizing students but without being exposed to the unquestioning minds of an uninformed public.

Figure 7.3 categorizes students born in March and the second February by their standardized test score in Grade 3. In effect, the age difference in the two groups is approximately twelve months, but what makes them particularly interesting is that they represent the highest and lowest points of achievement on the scale. Achievement levels are aggregated for the initial 0 to 29 percent range because numbers are relatively small, but the other students fell into categories created by deciles.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.