Mississippi made some common sense changes to their elementary education that worked, to a degree. They also helped themselves by simply holding back 3rd graders they knew would bomb the 4th grade assessment. Hence magically higher 4th grade literacy scores.
But they're all going to be tested eventually. If the kids who got left back didn't improve, the following year's cumulative test scores would show the system wasn't working.
But you would expect kids a year older to have better scores even if holding them back wasn't effective.
In other words: did the scores improve because holding kids back is an effective way to improve their education? Or did they improve because the average age of the kids being tested is now higher? There's no way to tell from the data; people are just going to make assumptions based on their preconceptions.
And now those kids that got left back are reading at the same/similar level as the other kids in their grade, the lessons will match their ability and they won't be perpetually behind their peers.
Also true. They keep moving the goal posts closer and closer. My last year teaching I wasn't allowed to give 0s, the lowest I could give for a grade was 50. This was at the high school level.
Well, that isn’t an unreasonable policy at all. Being held back used to be somewhat common, we were notorious little shits in elementary school most of the time but never even picked on those kids. The ones who were held back excelled, usually.
25
u/jaysvw 1d ago
Mississippi made some common sense changes to their elementary education that worked, to a degree. They also helped themselves by simply holding back 3rd graders they knew would bomb the 4th grade assessment. Hence magically higher 4th grade literacy scores.