User talk:Stuart Strahl

Merge?
Stuart - nice article on grade retention. The problem I see is that social promotion and grade retention are (almost) flip sides of the same coin - what to do with an underperforming student. So if both articles remain separate, there will be large amounts of overlap.

I'd be happy to merge the social retention article into your grade retention article (discarding a lot of stuff), and put a redirect on the social promotion article, if you're amenable. (And, by the way, if you look at the retention disambiguation page, you'll see a pointer to the social promotion article; you might want to change this.) John Broughton 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, John. As you probably saw I'm new to Wikipedia. I read the article on social promotion. I was hesitant to make changes too large to other people's work, and it struck me as not quite right to spend large amounts of "social promotion" article space talking about what's wrong with "grade retention." But, as I say, I'm new.


 * Thank's for the tip on the retention disambiguation page, too. I'd searched under "grade retention" and it hadn't turned up, and it hadn't occurred to me to search under "retention" until just before I got your message. I'd just fixed it.


 * I'm amenable to a merge. Another option would be to trim the "arguments against" and link. As I said, I'm hesitant to delete material myself until I'm more established. Either way.
 * Stuart Strahl 15:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm probably going to remove a lot of the verbage in the Social promotion article. Why don't we try this merge (I'll do it), and see what we think?  It's easy to revert an article [put it back the way it was - you just look at the history page, click on the last version you like, click on "edit" and then save it with a brief explanation in the edit summary of why you're reverting it], so if the merge/redirect turns out to not be a good idea, two reverts will put things back the way they were for the two articles.  John Broughton 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Stuart Strahl 18:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

ARTICLE
Grade retention is the practice of having a child repeat a grade level of schooling. A retained child is sometimes referred to as having been "held back." Extensive research has found short term gains but little to no long-term improvement from grade retention, and significant harmful effects.

History
During the 1970s, grade retention fell into disrepute, and the practice of Social promotion gained prominence. Social promotion is the promoting of underperforming students under the principle that maintaining with their peer group is important to success. This trend reversed in the 1980s as concern about academic standards rose. Since then the practice of grade retention has dramatically increased.

The implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act has resulted in an upsurge in the retention of children who score poorly on achievement tests. The practice of making retention decisions on the basis of the results of a single test &mdash; called “high-stakes testing” &mdash; is widely condemned in scientific literature. Test authors generally advise that their tests are not adequate for high-stakes decisions.

Outcomes
Some research shows improvement in the year following grade retention, particularly if additional instruction is provided. However, these gains are invariably lost in two to three years. Comparisons between students retained and students promoted who performed equivalently prior to retention decisions show the promoted students performing better. Further, retention impacts poorly on measures of “social adjustment, attitudes toward school, behavioral outcomes, and attendance.” It is a “stronger predictor of delinquency that socioeconomic status, race, or ethnicity,” and is also a strong predictor of drug and alcohol use and teenage pregnancy. Retained students are 2 to 11 times more likely to drop out of school than underachieving but promoted peers.

Anxiety
The possibility of grade retention has been shown to be an extreme stressor for children at risk. In one study of childhood fears performed in the 1980s, the top three fears for sixth graders were 1) loss of a parent, 2) going blind, 3) being retained. After two decades of increasing retention practices, a repeat of the study in 2001 found that grade retention was the single greatest fear, higher than loss of a parent or going blind.

Alternatives
Simple social promotion did not prove to be an adequate alternative to grade retention. Current theories among academic scholars prefer to address underperformance problems with remedial help. Students who qualify for Special education can receive such remediation through that program. Addressing the needs of underperforming students who do not qualify is a problem that remains to be solved. Ironically, the current system (see also: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) can result in a student with an IQ of 82 being retained, while one with equal performance and an IQ of 78 is promoted.

merger discussion of Jack (hero) and Jack tales
As one of a few editors with more than 1 edit to Jack tales, I urge you to please review Talk:Jack tales for merger discussion of Jack (hero) and Jack tales.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Border Ruffian
Please see my note on the talk page of Border Ruffian. I was not aware until I happened upon them that some of these terms were still used in Wikipedia without explanation. Bill Pollard (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Eye of Night


The article The Eye of Night has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Overlooking Barre.jpg


The file File:Overlooking Barre.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"Power armor in Warhammer" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Power armor in Warhammer. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)