End social promotions?

Union plan needs careful look

Published September 16, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Editorials

We've been critical recently of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. Their combative stance in labor negotiations has been so baffling and counterproductive that we relish any sign that the union may be poised to play a more constructive role in implementing the ambitious reform agenda of the district leadership.

Lo and behold, we've spotted one. The union's new blueprint for better schools, "Promoting School Success," contains ideas that are at least the starting points for serious discussion.

To be sure, the union's proposal falls short of comprehensive reform. Deliberately so. Union officials told us they support the district's Denver Plan, which covers far more ground in much more detail.

Fair enough. For that matter, some of the union's goals, such as smaller class size, are long-term objectives of the district, too.

The union's two genuinely bold proposals have to do with student promotions and discipline.

On promotions, the union would get rid of the veto that parents now enjoy over attempts to hold their child back in the same grade. This may be a wise idea; some kids can indeed benefit from being held back, and parents aren't always the best judge of when that's so.

That said, however, the union's proposed criteria for retaining students need more analysis to determine how many students might be affected. While the public would no doubt applaud the ending of "social promotions," research shows that most kids who are held back do not thrive without special help. If it's not careful, the district might end up doing little more than boost its already high dropout rate.

Similar analysis is needed for the union's three-trips-to- the-principal-and-you're-out plan for discipline. Yes, it is striking and alarming that teachers cited misbehavior as one of their top concerns in a recent union survey. But is discipline a site specific problem, afflicting some schools but largely absent in others? If so, does that say more about school leadership than a lack of district resolve to weed out troublemakers? The answer simply isn't known.

Moreover, how many students would actually be ejected under such a policy? Are the district's alternative programs ready to handle them effectively (we'll spare you the suspense; the answer is no). Shouldn't revamping those programs accompany any hardball policy that ejects more kids?

Kim Ursetta, the DCTA president, says the union's plan "is really about starting conversations." If so, mission accomplished.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News