Talk:Social promotion/Archive 1

message: I am so strongly against social promotion that I suspect I am "loading" the article to reflect my bias. Please help. --Uncle Ed 19:53, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Loading" the article 

message: Xtremeruna21:  you posted this in your edit summary:  why can't you ever think my side? This article is supposed to be neutral!
:Have you posted under some other name, or under an IP address?  Your edit summary ("ever") seems to imply that I've reverted your edits more than once; if so, they were under multiple names.  What might those be?  John Broughton 21:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple identities? 

message: I want to start a new discussion about this article. I want to say thank you to all those Wikipedians who contributed to this article.  This article is pretty interesting.  After reading it, I am strongly against social promotion.  There seems to be more reasons against social promotion than for.  Anyone agree? What do you think about this article? Would you promote your child if he/she was behind? I know I wouldn't. It's just wrong.  I can't believe that the school I went to supported social promotion.  Do you guys think that I should say something to the school district? That would be so cool...I'll be like making a difference...like Rosa Parks when she stood up for her right...After all it is a controversial topic.  So please comment on what you think.  I would appreciate it if you comment on this page rather than on my page.  It would be a lot easier for everyone to read.  thanks! ♥ Edicius
:Please do NOT delete prior discussions on this page.  They can be very useful to newcomers to the article.    
:Also, I suggest that you find another forum (outside of wikipedia) to discuss what you should or should not say to your school district.  Wikipedia talk/discussion pages are for discussing questions or possible improvements for the ARTICLE.  Please do NOT ask others to comment on your personal situation.  
:And, for what it's worth, I think there are strong arguments AGAINST retention for very young children (say, 8 years and younger), particularly where English is a second language.  If you haven't read all of the external links, I suggest you do - you'll find a lot of well-reasoned arguments about the problems of retention.  John Broughton 22:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  <font color=000000 face="Times New Roman, Serif" size=4>New discussion 

message: This article says that about one third of all Americans get retained at least once in their K-8 period. How about getting retained at least once in their K-12 period?? Georgia guy 20:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand the situation correctly, in the U.S., once a student reaches high school (grade 9 in some places, grade 10 in others), there is no such thing as retention (being kept back an entire grade).  Rather, like college, one either has enough credits (and required courses) to graduate, after four (or three) years, or one does not.  And if you do not, then you don't get a diploma.  You may end up repeating a course (or courses) that you failed, but you continue to move along with your peers (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, and finally former high school student).  John Broughton 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retention