1. REPETITION AS A REMEDY FOR FAILURES
We already know how many of the failing pupils repeat the subject of failure, but the success attending such repetition is entitled to further attention. Accordingly, the grades received in the 8,696 repetitions are presented here.
GRADES SECURED IN THE SUBJECTS REPEATED
| GRADES | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Repetitions | A | B | C | D | INC. |
| 3695 Boys | 63 | 547 | 1863 | 1003 | 219 |
| 5001 Girls | 83 | 724 | 2510 | 1337 | 347 |
| Per Cent of Total | 1.7 | 14.7 | 50.3 | 33.3 | |
Less than 2 per cent of the repeaters secure A's, while only about 1 in 6 ever secures either an A or a B. The first three are passing grades, with values as explained in [Chapter I], and D represents failure. Of the repeated subjects 33.3 per cent result in either a D or an unfinished status. It is a fair assumption that the unfinished grade usually bore pretty certain prospects of being a failing grade if completed, and it is so treated here. There is a difference of less than 1 per cent in the failures assigned to boys and girls for the repeated subjects.
The hope was entertained in the original plan of this study to secure several other sorts of information about the repeaters, but these later proved to be unobtainable. The influence of repeating with the same teacher as contrasted with a change of teachers in the same subject, the comparative facts for the repetition with men or with women teachers, the varying results for the different sizes of classes, and the apparent effect of supervised study of some sort before or after failing, were all sought for in the records available; but the schools were not able to provide any definite and complete information of the sorts here specified.
a. Size of Schedule and Results of Repeating
It would seem plausible that the failing pupils who were permitted and who possessed the energy would want to take one or more extra subjects to balance the previous loss of credit due to failure. Then it becomes important at once for the administrative head to know whether the proportion of failures bears a definite relationship to the size of the pupil's schedule of subjects. A normal schedule for most purposes and for most of the schools includes, on the average, four subjects or twenty weekly hours. In this study the schedule which each individual school claimed as normal schedule, has been accepted as such, all larger schedules being considered extra size and all smaller ones reduced. For instance, in one of the schools five subjects are considered a normal schedule even though they totaled 24 points, which is not usual. But in the other schools a normal schedule includes the range from 18 to 22 points irrespective of those carried in the subjects outside of the classification included in this study; while above 22 points is an extra schedule and below 18 a reduced schedule in the same sense as above. For the most part this meant that five or more of such subjects form an extra schedule, and that three form a reduced schedule. In this manner all the repeated subjects are classed as part of a reduced, a normal, or an extra sized schedule as follows.
SIZE OF SCHEDULES FOR PUPILS TAKING REPEATED SUBJECTS
| Total | Reduced | Normal | Extra |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3695 Boys | 132 | 1762 | 1801 |
| 5001 Girls | 164 | 2684 | 2153 |
| Per Cent of Total | 3.4 | 51.1 | 45.5 |
This distribution indicates that relatively few of the pupils take a reduced schedule in repeating. For the succeeding comparison with the grades of extra schedule pupils, those having a normal or reduced schedule are grouped together.
GRADES FOR SUBJECTS REPEATED BY FAILING PUPILS
WHO CARRIED A REDUCED OR NORMAL SCHEDULE
| Total Repetitions | A | B | C | D | . . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1894 Boys | 34 | 259 | 894 | 541 | 166 |
| 2848 Girls | 44 | 361 | 1319 | 840 | 284 |
| Per Cent of Total | 1.6 | 13.1 | 46.7 | 38.6 | |
In this distribution are the grades for 4742 instances of repetition. Of these, 38.6 per cent fail to pass after repeating. It is not possible to say definitely how many of these pupils actually determine their schedule by a free choice, and how many are restricted by school authorities or by home influence. But certain it is that a policy of opposition exists in some schools and with some teachers to allowing repeaters to carry more than a prescribed schedule; and in most schools at least some form of discrimination or regulation is exercised in this matter. It will appear from the next distribution that a rule of uniformity in regard to size of schedule, without regard to the individual pupils, is here, as elsewhere, lacking in wisdom and is in disregard of the facts.
GRADES FOR THE SUBJECTS REPEATED, WITH AN EXTRA SCHEDULE
| Total Repetitions | A | B | C | D | . . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1801 Boys | 29 | 288 | 969 | 462 | 53 |
| 2153 Girls | 39 | 363 | 1191 | 497 | 63 |
| Per Cent of Total | 1.7 | 16.6 | 54.5 | 27.2 | |
Out of the 3,954 repeated subjects in this distribution, 72.8 per cent secure passing grades, 27.2 per cent result in failures. This means that the repeaters with an extra schedule have 11.4 per cent fewer failing grades than the repeaters who carry only a normal or a reduced schedule. They also excel in the percentage of A's and B's secured for repeated subjects. In only one of the eight schools was the reverse of these general facts found to be true. In one other school the difference was more than 2 to 1 in favor of the extra schedule repeaters as judged by the percentages of failure for each group. It seems that at least three factors operate to secure superior results for repeaters with heavier schedule. First, they are undoubtedly a more highly selected group in reference to ability and energy. Second, they have the advantage of the spur and the motivation which comes from the consciousness of a heavier responsibility, and from which emanates greater earnestness of effort. Third, it is probable that some teachers are more helpful and considerate in the aiding and grading of pupils who appear to be working hard. It is, at any rate, a plain fact that those who are willing and who are permitted to take extra work are the more successful. Excessive emphasis must not be placed on the latter requirement alone, as willingness frequently seems to be the only essential condition imposed.
b. Later Grades in the Same Kind of Subjects, Following Repetition and Without It
Next in importance to the degree of success attending the repetition of failing subjects is the effect which such repetition has upon the results in later subjects of the same kind. By tabulating separately the later grades in like subjects for those who had repeated and for those who had not repeated after failure, we have the basis for the following comparison of results. It should be stated at this point that by the same kind of subject is not meant a promiscuous grouping together of all language or of all history courses. But for languages a later course in the same language is implied, with the single exception that Latin and French are treated as though French were a mere continuation of the Latin preceding it. Certain other decisions are as arbitrary. Greek, Roman, and ancient history are considered as in the same class; so are modern, English, and American history. The general and the biological sciences are grouped together, but the physical sciences are distinguished as a separate group. The various commercial subjects are considered to be of the same kind only when they are the same subject. All mathematics subjects are regarded as the same kind of subjects except commercial arithmetic which is classed as a commercial subject. All the later marks given in what was regarded as the same kind of subject, are included in the two distributions of grades which follow.
LATER GRADES IN THE SAME KIND OF SUBJECT,
AFTER FAILURE AND REPETITION OF THE SUBJECT
| Total | A | B | C | D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2788 Boys | 28 | 308 | 1441 | 1011 |
| 3489 Girls | 33 | 307 | 1748 | 1401 |
| Per Cent of Total | .9 | 9.8 | 50.8 | 38.4 |
This distribution shows a marked tendency for failures in any subject to be accompanied by further failures (38.4 per cent), not only in the subjects for which it is a prerequisite but in subjects closely akin to it. If this tendency to succeeding failures is really dependent upon thoroughness in the preceding subject, then the repetition of the subject should offer an opportunity for greater thoroughness and should prove to be a distinct advantage in this regard. When we compare the percentage of failures above with that in the following distribution, we fail to find evidence of such an advantage in repetition. The continuity of failures by subjects and the ineffectiveness of repetition are pointed out by T.H. Briggs[42] as found in an unpublished study by J.H. Riley, showing that after repeating and passing the subjects of failure, 33 per cent of those who continued the subject failed again the next semester.
LATER GRADES IN THE SAME KIND OF SUBJECTS,
FOLLOWING FAILURE BUT WITH NO REPETITION
| Total | A | B | C | D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1269 Boys | 5 | 102 | 639 | 523 |
| 1191 Girls | 8 | 147 | 669 | 367 |
| Per Cent of Total | .5 | 10.1 | 53.1 | 36.2 |
Here the same pronounced tendency is disclosed for the occurrence of other subsequent failures in the subjects closely similar. But for this distribution of grades, secured without any preceding repetitions, the unsuccessful result is 2.2 per cent lower than that found for those who had repeated. This group is not so large in numbers as the one above, and undoubtedly there is some distinct element of pupil selection involved, for it is not easy to believe that the repetition should work a positive injury to the later grades. Nevertheless, our faith in the worth of unconditional repetitions should properly be disturbed by such disclosures.
c. The Grades in Repeated Subjects and in the New Work,
for the Same Semester and the Same Pupils
If it is granted that the teachers of the repeaters are equally good as compared with the others, then the previous familiarity with the work that is being repeated might be expected to serve as an advantage in its favor when compared with the new and advanced work in other subjects. But the grades for the new and advanced work as presented below, and the grades for the repeated subjects as presented earlier in this chapter ([section 1]), deny the validity of such an assumption and give us a different version of the facts.
THE GRADES SECURED IN NEW WORK, AT SAME TIME AND BY SAME PUPILS
AS THE GRADES SECURED IN THE REPEATED SUBJECTS
| Total | A | B | C | D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11,029 Boys | 256 | 2225 | 5543 | 3005 |
| 11,941 Girls | 198 | 2064 | 6604 | 3075 |
| Per Cent of Total | 1.9 | 18.6 | 53.1 | 26.4 |
The facts not only show a lower percentage (by 6.9 per cent) of unsuccessful grades in the new work, but they also show a higher percentage of A's, of B's, and of C's than for the repeated subjects. There is definite suggestion here that often the particular subject of failure may be more responsible and more at fault than the particular pupil. Certainly uniformity and an arbitrary routine of tasks ignore the individual differences of interests and abilities. But by their greater and their repeated failures in the same deficient subjects (see [p. 66]) these pupils seem to have reasserted stoutly the facts ignored. They have been asked to repeat and repeat again subjects which they have already indicated their unfitness to handle successfully. This pursuance of an unsuccessful method is not good procedure in the business world. The doctor does not employ such methods.
d. The Number and Results of Identical Repetitions
It has become apparent before this that some pupils fail several times and in identical subjects because of their unsuccessful repetitions after each failure. Final success might at times justify multiplied repetitions, but in such instances it becomes increasingly important that the repetition should eventually end in success after the subject has been repeated two, three or four times. If such is not the result, then the method is at best a misdirection of energy; or still worse it is an irreparable error, expensive to the individual and the school alike, which only serves to accentuate the inequalities and perversions of opportunity imposed by an arbitrary requirement of the same subjects, the same methods, and the same scheme of education for all pupils alike, regardless of their capacities and interests. In using the term identical it is intended to designate just one unit of the course, as English I, or Latin II. The following table will disclose the facts as to the success resulting from each number of such successive and identical repetitions per pupil.
TABLE X
THE NUMBERS AND RESULTS OF REPEATED REPETITIONS,
FOR IDENTICAL SUBJECTS
| NO. OF | Grades | No | Per Cent | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| REPET. | A | B | C | D | Grade | Totals | Failing |
| 1 Boys | 62 | 532 | 1727 | 880 | 216 | 3117 | |
| Girls | 80 | 702 | 2329 | 1180 | 342 | 4633 | 32.5 |
| 2 Boys | 1 | 15 | 106 | 77 | 3 | 202 | |
| Girls | 3 | 17 | 154 | 89 | 2 | 265 | 36.6 |
| 3 Boys | . . | 0 | 26 | 33 | 0 | 59 | |
| Girls | . . | 5 | 19 | 36 | 3 | 63 | 59.0 |
| 4 Boys | . . | . . | 4 | 11 | . . | 15 | |
| Girls | . . | . . | 8 | 25 | . . | 33 | 75.0 |
| 5 Boys | . . | . . | . . | 2 | . . | 2 | |
| Girls | . . | . . | . . | 5 | . . | 5 | 100.0 |
| 6 Boys | . . | . . | . . | 0 | . . | 0 | |
| Girls | . . | . . | . . | 2 | . . | 2 | 100.0 |
| Tot. Boys | 63 | 547 | 1863 | 1003 | 219 | 3695 | |
| Girls | 83 | 724 | 2510 | 1337 | 347 | 5001 | |
Although a smaller number of pupils make each higher number of repetitions, a higher percentage of each successive group meets with final failure in the subject repeated, and the facts are indicative of what should be expected however large the numbers making such multiplied repetitions. It seems almost incredible that pupils should anywhere be required or permitted to make the fourth, fifth, or sixth repetition of subjects so manifestly certain of leading to further disappointment. It must be understood, too, that five and six repetitions means six and seven times over the same school work. The existence of such a situation testifies to a sort of deep-seated faith in the dependence of the pupil's educational salvation on the successful repetition of some particular school subject. It shows no recognition that the duty of the school is to give each pupil the type of training best suited to his individual endowments and limitations, and at the same time in keeping with the needs of society. Such indiscriminate repetition becomes a matter of thoughtless duplicating and operates, first, to increase the economic, educational, and human waste, where the school is especially the agency charged with conserving the greatest of our national resources. Second, it operates to fix more permanently the habit and attitude of failing for such pupils, and bequeaths to society the fruit of such maladjustments, which cannot fail to function frequently and seriously in the production of industrial dissatisfactions and misfits later in life. Such probabilities are merely in keeping with the psychological fact that habits once established are not likely to be easily lost. Indiscriminate repetition is an expensive way of failing to do the thing which it assumes to do.
Surely one finds in the preceding pages rather slight grounds to warrant the almost unqualified faith in repetition such as the school practice exhibits ([Table X]), or in the importance of the particular subjects so repeated. There may be evidence in this faith and practice of what Snedden[43] calls the "undue importance attached to the historic instruments of secondary education ... now taught mainly because of the ease with which they can be presented ... and which may have had little distinguishable bearing on the future achievement of those young people so gifted by nature as to render it probable that they should later become leaders." But such instruments will not lack direct bearing on the productions of failures for pupils whose interests and needs are but remotely served by such subjects.
A recent ruling in the department of secondary education,[44] in New York City, denies high school pupils permission "to repeat the same grade and type of work for the third consecutive time" after failing a second time. And further it is prescribed that "students who have failed twice in any given grade of a foreign language should be dropped from all classes in that language." Our findings in this study will seem to verify the wisdom of these rulings. Another ruling that "students who have failed successfully four prepared subjects should not be permitted to elect more than four in the succeeding term," or if they "have passed four subjects and failed in one," should be permitted to take five only provisionally, seems to judge the individual's capacities pretty much in terms of failure. We have found that for approximately 4,000 repetitions with an extra schedule, however or by whomever they may have been determined, the percentage getting A's and B's was higher and the percentage of failing was substantially lower than for approximately 4,700 repetitions with only three or four subjects for each schedule. It does not appear that the number of subjects is uniformly the factor of prime importance, or that such a ruling will meet the essential difficulty regarding failure. The failure in any subject will more often tend to indicate a specific difficulty rather than any general lack of 'ability plus application' relative to the number of subjects. The maladjustment is not so often in the size of the load as in the kind or composition of the load for the particular individual concerned. The burden is sometimes mastered by repeated trials. But often the particular adjustment needed is clearly indicated by the antecedent failures.