{"id":63506,"date":"2015-07-01T23:53:40","date_gmt":"2015-07-02T05:53:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=63506"},"modified":"2015-07-06T05:33:30","modified_gmt":"2015-07-06T11:33:30","slug":"mandatory-flunking-is-not-the-answer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2015\/07\/mandatory-flunking-is-not-the-answer\/","title":{"rendered":"Mandatory flunking is not the answer"},"content":{"rendered":"

A recent commentary<\/a> on this blog called out Senate Democratic leaders for not supporting the governor\u2019s pet education policies, specifically her push for mandatory third-grade flunking. The writer argues that opposition to the governor\u2019s education agenda is driven by the \u201cpolitics of personalities.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Mandatory<\/a>

f_a_r_e_w_e_l_l \/ Creative Commons<\/p>

Mandatory flunking does not lead to educational success, the senators who authored this commentary argue. (photo cc info<\/a>)<\/p><\/div>\n

Aside from being too simplistic, that argument completely ignores critical facts that drive our opposition to mandatory flunking of students.<\/p>\n

To begin, mandatory flunking takes away the rights of parents and teachers to make decisions about a child\u2019s education. Parents and teachers know their students\u2019 strengths and weaknesses. They know if the student is a poor test-taker but is an excellent learner and does well in class, excels in other subject areas besides reading, or has potential to overcome reading difficulties without being held back.<\/p>\n

But under mandatory flunking, if a student doesn\u2019t reach a specified score on a particular assessment test, the student will be flunked. Such critical decisions should not be made by bureaucrats at the Public Education Department, but by parents and teachers.<\/p>\n

Another reason we are opposed to mandatory flunking is that the administration did not provide an estimate of potential costs of its proposed legislation, as indicated in the bill\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0fiscal impact report. Nor did the administration give an estimate on the number of students that would be affected by this initiative.<\/p>\n

It is difficult to support something that could cost taxpayers millions without producing measurable benefits.<\/p>\n

A failed experiment<\/h3>\n

In 2014, Oklahoma ended its failed experiment<\/a> in mandatory flunking. Why? Because it cost taxpayers millions of dollars, hurt students, and took away parents\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n

While the commentary\u2019s writer dismisses the long-term impact flunking has on students, we do not. Our vision of helping the next generation does not include supporting legislation that puts students on a path to failure.<\/p>\n

Studies have shown<\/a>\u00a0that:<\/p>\n