By Arthur Alpert

I knew all about mandatory retention of little kids in the public schools, what it meant and where I stood on it before I read Leslie Linthicum’s UpFront column in the Journal, Thursday, March 3.

And all of a sudden, I was uncertain, confused, a bit at sea.

Isn’t that great?

After researching how keeping kids back might affect their futures, Linthicum asked, what happens in the year they repeat? And if the answer is the school will do a better job teaching the tykes, she wonders, “Why don’t we mandate doing that for every first, second and third grader in every school every year so we don’t have to flunk kids?”

She analyzed carefully, questioned assumptions, made fine distinctions and – before I knew it – I was thinking. (Darn it.)

Thank you, Leslie Linthicum.

Understand – my praise for Linthicum doesn’t mean I agree with her. The laurels translate this way:

“ This was delicious food for thought. My compliments to the journalist.”

PS I’ve already resolved to reread, “The Death and Life of the Great American School System” (New Testing and Choice are Undermining Education), by Diane Ravitch (Basic Books 2010).

PPS See posts beginning Feb. 17 by my colleagues, Tracy Dingmann and Denise Tessier, on Linthicum’s recent “schools” columns.