social promotion v. grade retention: two sides of the same coin
TRANSCRIPT
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)