Elimination and Retention of Pupils
- Author:
Edwaiid P. Cummings,
Superintendent of Schools, Lansing, Mich.
Tlie study of the facts and the causes of elimination of pupils in any single system of schools, or the comparison of elimination of pupils in different systems of schools, is a more complicated process than might at first appear. A common method of reaching a conclusion in regard to the number of pupils retained in any set of schools is to compare the enrolments in the various grades from first to last. Take the number of pupils in the first grade as a base; then determine what percentage of this number is found in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades respectively. The result will be the true percentage retained by that particular school. This has often been the rule by which educational statisticians have proceeded. At first sight it seems to be a fair one. A moment’s thought, however, shows the entire inadequacy and unreliability of such a course. Could we imagine a locality where the school population and enrolment were absolutely unchangeable from year to year, where the same number of children started each year in the first grade and where these conditions continued for a minimum period of twelve years, one year for each grade, with no moving to or from the district, possibly true conclusions might be reached. In no other case can this be so. A district with a rapidly increasing school population, where the lower grade enrolment naturally first feels this increase, suffers greatly in conclusions drawn from such a method of deduction. A district which is dead, a district where there is even a decrease in population, makes a splendid showing. With a constantly decreasing base (its first grade enrolment), the percentage of pupils retained in each grade apparently increases rapidly. It is therefore apparent that when such a rule is followed, a most desirable condition is to establish, if possible, a small enrolment in the first grade. A vigorous growing community has a large first grade. A community where the first grade is composed of primary and of so-called sub-primary has a first grade of nearly twice the size ?Included also in the last annual report of the Superintendent of Schools, Lansing, Mich of one that gives but one year to this work. A community with kindergarten and first primary has the same handicap in statistics compiled by the above rule, if kindergarten enrolment and first grade enrolment are taken together for the base. In a comparison of different school systems the resulting confusion is often due to lack of uniformity both in statistical methods of various systems and in rules for comparing such statistics.
Edward L. Tliorndyke, professor of educational psychology at Columbia University, reaches conclusions in his recent study of elimination of pupils from school which are totally at variance with those reached by Leonard P. Ayres, secretary of the backward children investigation on the Russell Sage Foundation. One of the important questions now being studied by the United States Commissioner of Education is a uniform system of statistics for the recording of facts regarding the important questions which arise in the extensive and intensive study of American school problems. Mr. Ayres recently addressed the superintendents of Michigan, assembled in annual meeting here in Lansing, upon this question of elimination. I was unable to be present at that part of the session, but I heard the substance of the greater portion of his Lansing address at the national meeting of superintendents at Indianapolis. In the Lansing address, a comparison of several Michigan cities was made and some conclusions drawn. In a recent letter from Mr. Ayres I have this paragraph: “Turning now to Lansing we find a peculiar situation. According to the figures the first grade is inexplicably large. A very good proportion of the beginners is carried through to the eighth grade and a very good showing is made in the high school. When I spoke in your city I explained that the Lansing diagram was quite largely made up on guess work because of the absence of real data [that I possessed] and so was not to be taken too seriously. Without knowing much about local conditions, I judge that the very large first grade is to be accounted for partly because many children are doing the work of the first grade as a preparatory grade during one year and as a real first grade the following year. Another probable explanation is that Lansing is growing very rapidly and the population is largely made up of young mechanics who have young children in their families. Thus Lansing, at present, has an abnormally large percentage of young children in the population.”
Mr. Ayres adds: “In the average city of this country less than half of all the children reach the eighth grade and not over one child in ten completes the high school course. Thus it will be seen that the Lansing showing is very superior to that made by the average city.”
“While we all like to hear such complimentary expressions, let us look at this important first grade enrolment of a few representative cities of the state. I can say that the figures upon which my conclusions and the following tables are based have been secured within the past two months directly from the superintendents of the various cities mentioned. They can therefore be relied upon as authoritative. Mr. Ayres spoke of Lansing’s first grade as unusually large. His deductions were generally made upon these figures as a base. The following is the population of eight Michigan cities, beginning with Lansing, and their respective first grade enrolments.
Population.* Number in first grade. Lansing, 35,000 7G4 (exclusive of kindergartens) Flint, 35,000 Number not given. Jackson, 35,000 540 Traverse City, …. 12,000 192 Saginaw, E. S.,… 30,000 482 Kalamazoo, 40,000 GOO Bay City, 45,000 700 Grand Rapids,…. 100,000 17G5
From this it appears that there are more first grade pupils in the Lansing schools than in any of the seven other schools mentioned above, except Grand Rapids. The reasons, as far as ascertainable, I believe to have been truly surmised by Mr. Ayres as quoted in his letter. I have been interested in a further comparison of conditions in the above eight schools, the unit of comparison, the base, being not the enrolment in the first grade, nor in any other single grade, but the “average number belonging” for the entire school. A comparison of the number of pupils in the public schools with the total population of legal school age in the community, five to twenty years, shows the following: Per cent Per cent Flint 75 Jackson 59 Traverse City 74 Saginaw, E. S…. 50 Lansing GO Grand Rapids 49 Kalamazoo GO Bay City 38
?This table was compiled before the results of the 1910 census were reported, but the estimates of population are not far wrong. The following percentages represent tlie relative numbers that have graduated from the eighth grade this year as compared with “average number belonging” for the entire school: Per cent Per cent Kalamazoo 7.6 Jackson 4.6 Saginaw 6.0 Grand Kapids…. 3.4 Bay City 5.7 Flint 3.1 Lansing 5.0
These are not percentages of those who entered school and completed the eighth grade. Such percentages would be much higher. These percentages mean that of the “average number belonging” in the entire primary system, grammar and high school, such as represented by the above figures were in the eighth grade completing class.
The following statistics are especially significant as they show the proportion of the schools’ “average number belonging” who are in the first high school grade. Here again warning must be taken not to think of these percentages as representing merely the proportion of pupils who reach the high school for it must be remembered that up and beyond these are all the pupils of the second, third, and fourth high school grades. Summary by Schools Number left Removal from city. Bingham …. Central Cedar Cherry East Park . .. Kalamazoo . . Larch Logan Mich. Ave. . Moores Park South St.. .. Townsend .. . Walnut High School . Kindergarten Total 36 51 71 28 23 69 71 44 32 26 22 28 40 98 54 693 Causes of Leaving 29 43 54 24 19 50 50 37 30 18 14 21 29 17 33 468 Sickness and Death. To Work. 5 5 7 2 2 5 12 3 2 3 4 4 5 18 13 01 2 3 1 22 50 Lack of Interes t. Failure. Other Causes. Reasons Not Known. 19 14 1 4 1 2 28 3 57 Help Needed in Family.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.