social promotionv.

grade retention:

two sides of the same coin

imagine:test based promotion standards

yet…

effective diagnosis

remediation of learning problems

past experience

have neither the

will means

nor the

(wish list…)well-designed and carefully aligned curricular

standards, performance standards and assessments

well-trained teachers able to meet high standards students have ample notice of expectations

learning difficulties identified well in advance of high-stakes testing deadlines

accountability would be shared among students, educators and parents

“There is no

positive example

of such a system in the

United States,

past or present,

whose success is documented by

credible research.”

(Hauser, 1999, p. 4)

social promotion:

retention:

practice of allowing students who have failed to meet performance standards and academic requirements to

pass on to the next grade with their peers instead of

completing or satisfying the requirements

policy that holds back students who have failing grades

at the end of the school year, aka policy of repetition

(Department of Education, 1999)

social promotion

retention

dichotomy of choice?

• 1989 – Holmes: 54/63 empirical studies found overall negative effects (Kelly, 1999)

• 1992 – Shepard: students who repeated a year were 20 to 30 percent more likely to drop out (Kelly, 1999)

• 1985 – Association of CA Urban School Districts: students retained twice had almost 100 percent probability of dropping out (Kelly, 1999)

• 2001 – Jimerson: nearly 700 analyses over a 75 year period demonstrated the consistent negative effects of retention on academic achievement; 320 analyses over a 40+ year period less than positive socioemotional adjustments; 21 year longitudinal study provides evidence that, due to lower levels of academic adjustment, were more likely to drop out by age 19, less likely to receive a diploma by age 20, less likely to enroll in a post-secondary program, receive lower education/employment status ratings, paid less per hour, receive poorer employment competence ratings (2001, p. 50-51)

• 1992 – Alexander: found retention harmless, offering small benefits and halting failure begun in previous years out (Kelly, 1999)

Retention studies negative effects

Retention studies positive effects

results of retention

high drop out rates leading to fewer employment opportunities, substance abuse and arrests

inadequate knowledge and skills

lower educational expectation by others

more

disr

uptive

behavior

external locus of control

(Frey, 2001; Jimerson, 2001; Nat’l Assn. of School Psychologists, 2003 )

lower educational

expectation for self

increased risks of health-

compromising behaviors

suicidal intentions

more likely to be: unemployed

on public assistance in prison

results of social promotion

students are thrust into society and cannot perform

internalize that you don’t have

to work hard

teachers must deal with under-prepared students

viable only because

retention is worse

(Thompson & Cunningham, 2000; Johnson, & Rudolph, 2001)

lower educational expectation for self

frustrates students

because they cannot do

the work

parents have false

sense of progressemployers conclude

diplomas are meaningless

students feel not worth time & effort

to help them be successful

consequences of retention…

…from the mouths of babes

an event so feared that many students report they would rather “wet” themselves in class (Brynes & Yamamoto in Frey, 2005)

is ranked as the most stressful life event, followed by loss of a parent and going blind (Nat’l. Association of School Psychologists, 2003)

made them feel sad, bad, upset, or embarrassed

feel not good enough

holding students backno change in instructional strategies

ineffective

• identify student problems and intervene as early as possible within the school year

• individualize appropriate instruction around each student’s need

• establish strong quality controls and monitoring to ensure that the additional time and help are working

(Denton, 2001)

• provide extra learning time during the school year: flexible and creative during school

hoursextra-time outside the school day

• make the new intervention different: carefully match materials to students’ needs and vary instructional approaches

• recognize that most of these students will need continued support throughout their school career

strategies (informing practice)

• encourage parental involvement (Fager & Richen, 1995)

• use tutoring or mentoring (Fager & Richen, 1995)

• provide additional education choices

• use interventions that are evidence-based (Picklo & Christensen, 2005)

• use cognitive behavior modification strategies (Jimerson, 2001, p. 55)

• provide a learning resource program (Fager & Richen, 1995)

• use ungraded classes/subjects and “promote” them when requirements have been met

• implement full service schools (Nat’l Association of School Psychologists, 2000)

other considerations

teachers must be trained to detect problems and refer students to appropriate sources of help (Denton, 2001)use of teachers with specialized expertise (Denton, 2001)

use of instructional strategies that do not depend primarily on peer assistance (Picklo & Christenson, 2005)

avoid remediation that focuses narrowly on minimum academic competencies and test-taking skills (Picklo & Christenson, 2005)instructional supports must be ready as soon as students need assistance (Darling-Hammond in Picklo & Christensen)

recognize importance of early developmental programs and preschool programs to enhance language and social skills (American Association of School Psychologists, 2001)

reading is

KEY!

“The most notable academic deficit for retained students is in reading.”

(Nat’l Assn. of School Psychologists, 2003)

“Without the ability to read, a student is cut off from learning in every subject. Thus, the majority of retentions occur in 1st grade, even though researchers have found 1st graders often benefit least from the practice.”

(Kelly, 1999)

“Reading problems probably are the most common cause of student failure…Research increasingly shows that virtually all children can learn to read. However, the research also shows that not all children learn to read in the same way…Repeating a grade is particularly ineffective for students who struggle with reading.”

(Denton, 2001)

what about the effects of high stakes testing?

present:

ninth grade

past:

kindergarten through

third grade

(Frey, 2005)

instructional changes related to improving student performance

more evidentincrease in monitoring of student performance and progress

more evident

increase in efforts to accelerate progress of low-achieving students

more evident

increase in clarity of instructional goals

more evident

(Picklo & Christenson, 2005)

high stakes testing

=

multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery

(American Psychological Association, 2001)

“It is only fair to use test results in high-stakes

decisions when students have had a real

opportunity to master the materials upon which

the test is based.”

(American Psychological Association, 2001)

“…the real need is not so much to find a

formula for effective remediation as it is to

find a formula for effective education…”

(Alexander, et al. in Jimerson, 2001)

effective education

ReferencesAmerican Psychological Association. (2001, May). Appropriate use of high-stakes

testing in our nation’s schools. Retrieved March 13, 2006, from: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/testing.html

Denton, D. (2001, January). Finding alternatives to failure: Can states end social promotion and reduce retention rates? Retrieved March 12, 2006, from the Southern Region Education Board Web site:

http://www.sreb.org/programs/srr/pubs/Alternatives/AlternativesToFailure.asp

Department of Education. (1999, May). Taking responsibility for ending social promotion: A guide for educators and state and local leaders. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/socialpromotion/index.html

Fager, J. & Richen, R. (1999, July). When students don’t succeed: Shedding light on grade retention. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Web site: http://www.nwrel.org/request/july99/

Frey, N. (2005, November/December). Retention, social promotion and academic redshirting: What do we know and need to know? Remedial and Special Education. 26(6). Retrieved March 12, 2006, from the Academic Search Premier database.

ReferencesJimerson, S. (2001). A synthesis of grade retention research: Looking backward and

moving forward. The California School Psychologist, 6. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from the University of California, Santa Barbara Web site:

http://www.education.ucsb.edu/jimerson/retention/CSP_RetentionSynthesis20 01.pdf

Johnson, D. & Rudolph, A. (2001). Beyond social promotion and retention – five strategies to help students succeed. Retrieved March 13, 2006, from the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Web site:

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at800.htm

Kelly, K. (1999, January/February). Retention vs. social promotion: Schools search for alternatives. Harvard Education Letter. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from: http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/1999-jf/retention.shtml

National Association of School Psychologists. (2003, April 12). Position statement on student grade retention and social promotion. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from: http://www.nasponline.org/information/pospaper_graderetent.html

Picklo, D. & Christenson, S. (2005, September/October). Alternatives to retention and social promotion: The availability of instructional options. Remedial and Special Education. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from the EBSCOhost

database.

ReferencesThompson, C. & Cunningham, E. (2000, December). Retention and social promotion:

Research and implications for policy. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from:

www.ericdigests.org./2001-3/policy.htm (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449241)