“Social promotion,” in education, refers to passing students from grade to grade with little regard for their academic performance. President Bill Clinton wrote in 1998, “If we are going to go strong into the 21st century, we must continue to expand opportunity for all of our people. … That is why I have fought for an … end to social promotion. We cannot afford to let our children down when they need us the most.”
Fourteen years later, the Tucson Unified School District has still not accepted that responsibility. After relaxing its promotion standards in the mid-1990s, TUSD relaxed them again in 2006.
As a result, almost all TUSD students past the second- grade advance to the next level, even if their achievement is below grade level. This practice leads to gross underperformance at higher grades: In 2011, 40 percent of TUSD’s eighth-graders fell below the AIMS reading standard, and 48 percent fell far below the math standard. Both percentages are much higher than the statewide averages.
Arizona law expects more. ARS 15-701.C requires: “Pursuant to the guidelines that the state board of education distributes, the governing board of a school district shall … prescribe criteria for the promotion of pupils from grade to grade. … These criteria shall include accomplishment of the academic standards in at least reading, writing, mathematics, science and social studies, as determined by district assessment.” Those standards and assessments hardly exist in TUSD.
The Arizona Daily Star, in a 2008 series, documented the gravity of the problem. Then-Superintendent Roger Pfeuffer admitted the inadequacy of TUSD’s policy: “The state board gives the local education agency the authority to set the standards, and yet in our case, (TUSD’s policy) basically … goes back to the state standard; that’s a no-win situation.”
I have pressed this issue within TUSD, but the status quo is well-rooted. One respected local educator wrote: “Making eighth-grade promotion more significant than simple promotion to ninth-grade elevates the status of eighth-grade (and) works against our efforts to encourage students to understand that high school graduation is critical.”
Yet common sense says that social promotion through middle school contributes directly to TUSD’s 24 percent high school dropout rate. Students who arrive unprepared for high school are more likely to drop out. As the Star observed in 2008: “Many Tucson business leaders and experts say social promotion and grade inflation ultimately lead to a work force that’s unprepared and has a scant grasp of skills, which bodes poorly for the region’s economy and future.”
Even among students who graduate from high school with strong grades, a large number of them are unprepared for college. We see this at the UA every year. Is this the best we can do, after a student spends 10,000-plus hours in our K-12 schools?
Our current practice not only leaves students unprepared for life, but also reduces their expectations for themselves. Setting a low bar sends the message, “Sorry, but we think that this is the best you can do.” We do not even enforce our own standards, and routinely promote students even if they fail their courses. Why should they take standards seriously if TUSD does not take them seriously?
Some people claim that current practice is rooted in an out-of-date educational philosophy that emphasizes—but also misunderstands—students’ self-esteem. Lasting self-esteem comes from achieving something that is genuinely difficult. Working hard to pass one demanding course does more for self-confidence than five pats on the back.
Of course, no one wants to hurt students who have already spent years in a system that has reduced their expectations and their performance. The purpose of setting a high bar is to do everything possible to help students get over it.
This will require radical changes. We should rethink the school day and calendar. Other options include alternative schools, where students can go to catch up; relaxing the concept of assigning middle and high school students to a single “grade”; and contracts with students and their families to ensure that they do all that they can to succeed.
The problem is urgent. It will take years to solve, but that only underscores the need to start now.
Mark Stegeman is a member of the TUSD governing board.
This article appears in Jun 14-20, 2012.
District policy is not the problem. Poverty is the problem. For the huge amount of children in TUSD, who are poor, the achievement gap begins long before a child even enters school. Those children enter Kinder, well behind their middle class peers academically. Some 5 yr olds enter with no English and have to learn a new language. They are immediately disadvantaged in the system. Some enter with English as their native language, but with a 30 million word deficit that can be temporarily improved, but not accelerated. (See Hart & Risley, 2003). These issues do not exist at Collier or Fruchtendler, but they do exist in a huge chunk of TUSD. Making sure that every child in TUSD, especially in the high poverty areas, enters Kindergarten with the same academic advantage as a middle class child, would bring far better results at 8th grade.
Students at TUSD’s Rose K-8 school come from a low-income neighborhood, but the school is rated “A” by the state, with excellent achievement results. To use students’ economic or family background as an excuse for setting lower expectations is a great disservice to those students.
Mr. Stegeman,
No where did I mention setting lower expectations. I stated facts and advocated for more resources.
Rose is certainly not indicative of most schools on the southwest side. As a matter of fact, their test scores are outliers. If Rose is the standard on the SW side, why isn’t their success being replicated throughout the district?
Excellent question, Pima Mujer. A big part of the answer is differences in school leadership. I believe that the district needs huge systemic reforms to get schools like Rose to be more of the norm and less the exception. Of course we need more resources but for now it is our responsibility to the best with what we have and I think we can do much better.
As a parent, I see TUSD and poverty as contributors to this problem. I agree with Dr. Stegeman that high expectations must be set and school leaders need to understand that setting the bar high is the best way to overcome poverty. I’ve seen this in my daughter’s schools–children from all economic backgrounds were in these schools, and if standards were set low, the students rose to that level. If teachers set high expectations, the kids rose up and generally respected these teachers more. I understand that special resources are needed for students who have language and skill problems, but we need to focus on how to overcome this vs. pull down other students.
I believe Dr. Stegeman and his fellow administrators should begin their “systemic reforms” with at least a 40-60% cut in their pay, which will then be parceled out among TUSD’s top-performing teachers in every school. They should also be required to eat daily in TUSD cafeterias, consuming the same food (and I use that term reservedly) that the students do-think they’ll still keep buying “finely textured beef” (a.k.a. pink slime) and the like if they have to eat it too? Finally, they must draft and pass new rules and guidelines for TUSD that stipulate administrators’ pay cannot be increased until every school under their charge is performing at academically sufficient levels.
I think these changes would go a long way towards addressing the problems that have existed and continue to persist in this district. What do you think, Dr. Stegeman?
Mr. Fletcher: Board members receive no pay. I agree that administrative costs are too high. At one point I pushed for a policy which would require new administrative appointments to come before the board before being advertised, but that did not get majority support on the board. At present administrators’ bonuses are set by the superintendent, but I like the idea of tying their bonuses or raises to specific measures of performance such as schools’ grades; I tried to get a specific formula built into the superintendent’s compensation but again did not get majority support on the board. We are already moving toward teacher compensation which is tied to performance, as required by the state. As for the food, there are chronic complaints and you are right that I have never eaten it; having lunch at a school cafeteria is a good idea.
Thank you for your response, Dr. Stegeman. Now would you mind explaining to everyone why you vacated the board presidency, making your odds of implementing significant change almost nil?
The rules of the governing board give the presidency little special power. The cold truth is that I was having little success convincing the board to take a leadership role on issues even when I was the president, so I might as well step outside of that position and at least have greater freedom to advocate forcefully for my own views (e.g., this column).
So let me see if I have this straight…you left what you claim is a largely ceremonial position to agitate someone else stepping into the same position to implement the changes you say they will be unable to make due to the constraints of the role?
If this is an example of your brand of logic, I am thankful you no longer occupy the board presidency and will begin working to completely remove you from the TUSD board with all speed.
Everyone on the board has one vote, regardless of who is the president, and the president has no power to make any significant decisions on his or her own. So whatever has three votes can get done, and whatever does not have three votes cannot get done. The point is not who is president; the point is what three or more members of the board are willing to support.
No, the point is what the president is able to achieve in terms of putting those three votes together, as any decent politician or administrator should be able to do. Obviously one must achieve a majority of votes to implement an agenda in what is (nominally, at least) a democratic system. But if you were previously unable to do so as board president, I honestly don’t see or understand how your ability to curry three votes will increase by stepping down.
The difference is that this way I may be better able to take the case to the public without worrying about “representing the board” — come at it more from an outsider viewpoint though I am obviously not an outsider. We’ll see how it goes.
As if the local media outlets don’t already publish your every utterance and move in the professional arena! Your reasoning is specious and reeks of wishful thinking, sir. If you actually cared about the children under your care, you would remove yourself from the board entirely as you obviously lack the necessary intelligence to craft any sort of solution to TUSD’s dilemma.
Hi Guys, As much as I like reading your online version; having not one but TWO separate windows open up BEFORE I even read the material is too much for me. And the ZEDO thing stays open behind my windows without my knowledge. I know you have bills to pay, Unfortunately, I won’t be paying them. How do I remove myself from your login/logout system?
Mitch Marcus
Well, may have to put in student parking in many middle schools…for the 6th graders.
To RJFletcher: The point Dr. Stegeman was trying to make is that the president of the Board is not supposed to be publicly articulating any positions other than ones the Board has adopted. This clearly limits the ability of the Board President to argue for his own views outside the confines of Governing Board meetings. The fact that other Board presidents have ignored their responsibility to represent the Board…and not themselves…does not mean they were right to do so. In the not-so-distant past the real value of being Board President was in being one of only two Board members who had a say in setting the agenda for Board meetings. That is no longer the case so there is now little real value in being Board President…apart from having your face in the news more frequently than other Board members.
As far as intelligence goes, maybe you have not sat through countless TUSD Governing Board meetings, but I have. The level of intelligence (and knowledge about educational issues) among that group…apart from Dr. Stegeman…is truly pitiful. Do yourself a favor and actually attend some of these meetings before making such inaccurate comments. I may not agree with Dr. Stegeman on a variety of issues, but he at least can articulate reasons for his positions. The best the other Board members can do is regurgitate nonsense fed them by the superintendent to justify his own bad decisions.