Talk:Grade retention

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. The debate is initiated and spoiled by sockpuppets of a banned user. The article and concepts do require a cleanup and better scope definition indeed; however, per WP:BAN, we don't act on behalf of banned users, and some of the discussion below was perhaps better deleted. Duja► 09:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Grade retention → Repeater (student) - It might be best to rename this article "Repeater (student)" rather than grade retention. In the UK, they do not call the educational years as a "grade". If we use the term repeater, people would know that it is a student who repeats a course. I also feel that Repeater (student) is better because it reflects students of all ages. Grade retention looks like it only talks about students in elementary and high school. Students of all ages do fail and sometimes they have to repeat. I feel that having the article called "Repeater (student) is the more general term. —Nitsirk 13:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The support votes by backwards given names below may be considered single-purpose accounts in this discussion, and there is also other evidence of canvassing. The discussion should be interpreted accordingly. Dekimasuよ! 11:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This poll was initiated (and stacked) by a (now blocked) sockpuppet of banned User:Jessica Liao who, through herself and her socks, has a long history of disruptive page moves. --Bradeos Graphon 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. "Repeater (student)" wouldn't make sense to an American or (I think) a Canadian. Actually, that title makes me think of a student who voluntarily chooses to take a class that was successfully passed before (to brush up on your math skills as an adult, for example). Furthermore, the article is more about the concept and the school policies, and less about individual students, so "Repeating (education)" might make more sense than "Repeater (student)". Dekimasu's merge idea is okay with me. I'd support a redirect for Nitsirk's proposed title. WhatamIdoing 17:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support I agree with everything the nominator says. It's appropriate because it reflects students of all ages unlike grade retention where it only reflects students in elementary school. --Yasdnil 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)This user is a suspected sockpuppet of banned User:Jessica Liao. Bradeos Graphon

• Support I think that "Repeater (student)" is the better title. It is not limiting. It is open to so much more. Don't you see that? Repeaters can be students of all ages. It's not just for elementary or high school. It's also for college and for any student that failed courses. If we keep the article to "grade retention", will that title cover students in college or even beyond? No, because grade retention only reflects students in elementary and secondary schools. "Grade" has always been talking about only in elementary and secondary schools. In college, they don't have grades there. It's just called freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior. --Refinnej 11:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)This user is a suspected sockpuppet of banned User:Jessica Liao. Bradeos Graphon

• Support Well if the correct term should abide from the title not another meaning. If Grade retention means students in elementary school, as to Repeater (student) goes by students of all ages. Then might as well make the change. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nitsirk, please don't remove other people's comments from talk pages unless they are vandalism or unrelated to editing the article in question. I left my note here without an "oppose" or "support" tag because this is a discussion, not a vote, and I wanted to tread softly. I made it clear that I am in favor of a merge instead of the current proposal, but since you removed my comment for lacking "support" or "oppose", I suppose I'll write oppose. Dekimasuよ! 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is a vote. People vote and they have to give reasons why that is right. --Nitsirk 11:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)This user is a suspected sockpuppet of banned User:Jessica Liao. Bradeos Graphon
• Oppose. Both of these names are really confusing and don't fit the topic for me and probably many people. There is some appeal for using promotion (academic) but even that is not without a few warts. Repeating academic years may be the better choice but it is not a phase used over here as far as I know. Vegaswikian 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Why can't my friends support me? If they agree with me, they have every right to join! --Nitsirk 11:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• How about merging Social promotion and Grade retention to Promotion (academic)? It doesn't seem necessary to separate the two sides of the same topic. Dekimasuよ! 15:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• I favor a merge instead of the move suggested here, as noted below. Dekimasuよ! 14:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion (academic) re-directs to Doctorate. Georgia guy 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice a Geobias tag on the article. With so little non-North American content, maybe a solution would be to leave the article where it is and move the non-North American content to a better location. Seems there should be enough differences that it wouldn't qualify as a content fork. — AjaxSmack 06:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And which location would that be? I think it would just be confusing to put it in a separate article. If they relate to the same topic I think it should be included with the US. I don't understand why we can't just change the title to Repeater (student). I think it's better because it's in the view of the student and how they look at it when they repeat. --Nitsirk 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article technically isn't about students who repeat years of school. If you look at the lead, it says, "Grade retention is the practice of...." Therefore we can conclude that the article is primarily about a practice or a policy, and not primarily about the person who is affected by this practice. Therefore I oppose the "Repeater" title, which I see as being akin to writing an article about driving a car, and then labeling it "Driver." I'd be more likely to support "Repeating (education)" than "Repeater (student)." WhatamIdoing 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Grade retention is "the practice of" must have a citation. There are no references stating that schools force children to repeat. Schools who want children to repeat grades obviously hate children. They have studied the development of children and still they think that children who fail should still repeat. This is sad because it means we truly live in a cruel world. Everyone knows that children are too young to deal with this stress. That's why we (the adults who do care) take care of children as best as we can. We understand that they are young and don't know better. So that's why we act as a positive role model to them so they know who to look up to. We protect them from the cruelness of the world. And yet we still can't because of the majority of the people who are so inconsiderate to children's needs. This is very sad. It's only the people who hate children. That's why they want them to repeat because they have no love for them. Honestly it would be breaking my heart if a third grader had to repeat the grade. It is sad that the teachers there have no feelings towards this. They just act innocent like repeating a grade is a good thing where deep inside they know it's bad for their development. I honestly don't know what is wrong with these people. These people are the ones who shouldn't be working with "our children". What I just said was an opinion. So don't get offended by what I say. --Nitsirk 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a sample of my introduction for if Repeater (student) is picked as the title: A repeater is a student who repeats a course, usually one previously failed. Schools for young children generally do not allow students to repeat as part of their policy because they feel that children cannot handle the stress. However, there are some schools that have a strict policy that children must repeat. For these exceptional children, they may feel even worst than when older students repeat due to their emotional immaturity. It is more common for students to repeat as they get older because of their emotional maturity. Schools for older students are more flexible about determining which level of students take which classes. For example, high school and college allows student to repeat. Repeaters commonly report feeling sad and as a result lower their self-esteem. On a positive note, they feel that it has given them a second chance to succeed.

How's that? --Nitsirk 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:WhatamIdoing that titling the article for the person rather than the practice is limiting. And, no, I don't know an appropriate location for a move of the non-North American content. It was just an idea to stimulate discussion. Also consider User:Dekimasu's idea of a merger of Social promotion and Grade retention mentioned above. — AjaxSmack 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not limiting. Did you read my intro? I covered everything. I think grade retention is limiting because it only covers elementary and high school. It doesn't cover college and beyond. It mostly talks about children who repeat grades, not about adults repeating courses that they failed. --Nitsirk 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the social promotion being merged into the grade retention article. So I'm going to put a merger up since both of us agree. --Nitsirk 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose your POVish introduction. Your proposed introduction basically says "I don't like retention, so it doesn't exist." That's simply false. I will not support unsourced wishful thinking in this article. I know that you hate the idea that a young student might need to redo some material. I get that. But there are thousands of U.S. schools that encourage repetition of a single year for that "one in a hundred" student who would benefit (at least in the short term) rather than declaring the student to be disabled -- and there are NO U.S. schools which will not permit grade retention if a parent insists. Some of them even have special grades to support this. A few years ago, I volunteered at an elementary school that had a pre-first-grade class. All the kids started Kindergarten at the age of five. At the end of the year, the teachers made a list of who knew the alphabet and first ten numbers. If you knew the material, then you turned six and went to first grade. If you didn't know the material, then you turned six and went to pre-first. None of these kids seemed traumatized by the experience.

I've also spoken with parents who had their kids repeat a grade, and they generally seem satisfied. I've also spoken to two parents who wished that they had demanded that their child repeat a grade. One of them said her daughter would have been much happier throughout school if she had been with the next class, which was artistic and fun, instead of with the mean-spirited athletes in her exact age group. Retention may be unpleasant for some people, but not everyone opposes it. WhatamIdoing 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that there's a big difference between repeating an entire year and flunking a single university class. Grade retention is about re-doing everything. It essentially does not exist in American high schools, which work on a credit system exactly like the universities. In high school or unversity, if you flunk algebra, then you re-take just algebra. The level you're at (freshman or sophomore, for example) is just defined by how many classes you passed. My small county has over a hundred students in their fifth year of what's suposed to be a four-year high school program. However, in elementary school, if you flunk reading, then the typical options are:

• re-take the entire year,
• spend all summer in a catch-up program, or
• move into a program for learning disabled students.

You can't very well tell a six-year-old to switch back and forth between teachers and classrooms all day so he can learn last year's reading and this year's math -- especially in the district where my nieces attend, because every single grade is in a separate building in a different part of town. This article focuses on the experience of chidlren (under 14) specifically because they deal with unique issues due to the structure of a normal elementary school program and the age of the students. WhatamIdoing 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so you admit it. Grade retention is only used in elementary schools. Repeater (student) reflects students of all ages. This is the more general term. You didn't make a comment about that. --Nitsirk 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to tell me what repeating is. I know what it means. People in college can repeat courses as well as repeating the entire year. If they fail the entire year, they can repeat the entire year. --Nitsirk 23:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.