e:\doc\web\99\05\ret2.txt From: "Dan & Judy Konieczko" To: "ClearingHouse" Subject: [education-consumers] Fw: Retention Research (1) Date sent: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:11:39 -0500 Send reply to: "Dan & Judy Konieczko" I am forwarding some information about retention research gleaned by Renee Robertson. I notice that this research focuses intently on the achievement of individual who is the subject of the retention, but totally ignores the impact on the achievement of social promotion on others in the classroom. Due to the listserv I will forward the research as a series of studies. Dan -----Original Message----- From: Rick & Renee Robertson Report Questions Academic Effectiveness of Grade Retention -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ORONO, Maine -- Retaining a child in the same grade for a second year is neither academically nor economically justified, according to a new report from the University of Maine College of Education & Human Development. The adoption of stricter promotion standards, particularly following the 1983 Nation at Risk report on sub-standard student performance, has resulted in the unintended consequence of higher retention rates rather than increased student motivation or improved school effectiveness, according to the report, "The Impact of Repeating a Grade: A Review of Research in the '90s," from the College's Center for Research and Evaluation. An estimated 5 to 7 percent of public school students are retained in the United States each year, and by ninth grade half of the nation's public school students have either failed a grade or left school, according to the review of six recent longitudinal studies. The report conclude that retention by itself does not benefit academically at-risk students to an extent that justifies burdening them with an extra year of schooling and costing the nation's schools an estimated $10 billion in annual retention costs. Maine's grade retention rate of 1.42 percent in 1995-96 is down from 2.72 percent 10 years ago and is below the estimated national average. But that's still too high given the research and collective wisdom on the ineffectiveness of holding students back, according to Paula Moore, director of UMaine's Center for Early Literacy and a veteran public school teacher and administrator. "This review of the literature confirms what we have know for two decades -- that retention does not work to raise achievement or to fix learning difficulties. However, it appears to be the best short-term solution to most schools, especially in the wake of widespread public support for stricter grade promotion standards," Moore says. It's important to consider the consequences of retention while advancing reform initiatives, such as the Maine Learning Results, notes Moore. Research indicates that such accountability measures tend to increase retention, but not necessarily achievement, she explains. In addition, Maine's lower retention rates relative to the rest of the country might mask other indirect forms of retention, according to Moore, such as delayed entry to kindergarten, transition grades, multi-age classrooms, and referrals to special education. "The alternative to retention - closer observation and teaching to the needs of individual students - is labor intensive, but we know that's what is best for the child in the long run, " Moore says. The majority of grade retention in Maine, as nationally, is in kindergarten and first grade. This fall, Moore is spearheading a statewide survey of K-5 teachers, principals and special educators to assess their attitudes on why, despite research and collective wisdom, Maine schools continue to retain students. Involving educators up to grade five will give a long-range view of the effectiveness of repeating kindergarten or first grade. The goal of the survey is to determine what factors in the school culture and context contribute to the continuing tendency to retain students in the same grade for a second year. Overall, the studies reviewed for the report found neither decreased achievement nor improved performance as a result of retention. The performance of retained children tended to match that of academically at-risk promoted students, and most studies found that both of these groups continued to be significantly out-performed by regularly promoted students. Four of the six studies reviewed conclude that retention is an ineffective practice with the extra year not only failing to bring retainees up to grade level expectations, but failing even to give them a performance edge over their promoted but academically lagging peers. Two studies conclude that retention can be beneficial, if students are not retained more than one year, if parents are supportive, and if retention is coupled with additional, intensive remedial assistance. The report was prepared by research staff members Susan Woodward and Tonya Kimmey. Among other information from the report reviewing recent national research: a.. An estimated 40 percent of males and 20 percent of females in the United States have been retained by age 14. b.. A high percent of retained students entered kindergarten or first grade unprepared for school work and were economically and socially disadvantaged. c.. In terms of personal adjustment, first-grade retainees showed gains in academic expectations and liking for school, but these gains evaporated in seventh grade. d.. Struggling students will not fully succeed in school by simply going over the same material twice. e.. Students retained in kindergarten or first grade and those who had been recommended for retention but were socially promoted scored basically the same on achievement scores in fourth grade, but both groups scored significantly lower than their classmates who had been regularly promoted. f.. Retained children are more likely to have parents who did not graduate from high school; have parents who were not involved in their schooling; have moved and changed schools. (Copies of the report, "The Impact of Repeating a Grade: A Review of Research in the 90s," are available from the UMaine Center for Research & Evaluation, (207) 581-2493). Released:September 29, 1997 Contact: Kay Hyatt, (207) 581-2761 From: "Dan & Judy Konieczko" To: "ClearingHouse" Subject: [education-consumers] Fw: Retention Research (5) Date sent: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:32:41 -0500 Send reply to: "Dan & Judy Konieczko" -----Original Message----- From: Rick & Renee Robertson a.. Stay Back, Drop Out Is retention bad for students? Some researchers say yes. Retention can actually harm academic achievement, according to Lorrie A. Shepard, the interim dean of the education school at the University of Colorado at Boulder. She takes issue with the use of the term "social promotion" because it assumes the decision to promote is made for social reasons. She argues that for an underachieving child, promotion is in the child's best interests academically. She cited recent analyses of existing research that show that when retained children went on to the next grade, they performed worse on average than if they had gone on without repeating. For that matter, students who are held back are more likely to drop out, many experts agree. Ms. Shepard's own research has found that to be the case. Three large-scale studies she and another researcher conducted in the 1980s looked at 20,000 to 80,000 students each. The researchers found that of students with equally poor achievement--and controlling for other background characteristics associated with dropping out, such as race, ethnicity, and gender--students who repeated a year were 20 percent to 30 percent more likely to drop out of school. Instead of retaining students, Ms. Shepard argues, schools should provide extra instructional help, before- or- after-school programs, summer school, or no-cost peer tutoring. If some of those options sound pricey, the cost of retention can be high, too; the average spending for a year of public schooling is about $5,500 per pupil, according to federal education statistics. And Ms. Shepard and others take a dim view, for several reasons, of parallel tracks or pullout programs for students needing help with skills. Such approaches may offer a watered-down curriculum. Or, if students are plopped back into the regular classroom at midyear, they may be at a disadvantage if they have not been covering the same material. Even transitional classes are "just retention under a different name," contends C. Thomas Holmes, an education professor at the University of Georgia in Athens. Mr. Holmes and others offer multiage classrooms as another alternative to the traditional promote-or-retain scenario. But according to some researchers at Johns Hopkins University, having a student repeat a grade is not always a negative practice. They found in a study of inner-city Baltimore students that those who repeated a grade in elementary school saw their grades, test scores, and self-esteem improve. The longitudinal study is also expected to yield information on how these students fare as they grow older. "Repeating the year gave them a chance to consolidate their skills," said Karl L. Alexander, a sociology professor running the study. Mr. Alexander emphasized, however, that retention is not a cure-all. The students who realized some benefits from retention were those kept back just one year. Even so, while they moved from failing to passing, they remained behind peers their same age and were still having "serious problems," Mr. Alexander said. Retention alone does not eliminate the student's difficulties, he said. Ideally, Mr. Alexander said, the student would be getting extra resources and attention to address academic deficits. While some point to the detrimental effects retention can have on self-esteem, Mr. Alexander speculated that such negative social effects may have been eased in Baltimore because retention is fairly common and does not seem to make students social pariahs. By the students' eighth year of schooling, the Hopkins researchers found, four in 10 students had been retained at least once. And all in the backyard of state Delegate Fulton, who had so much trouble buying blinds. From: "Dan & Judy Konieczko" To: "ClearingHouse" Subject: [education-consumers] Fw: Retention Research - 1 of 4 Date sent: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:43:57 -0500 Send reply to: "Dan & Judy Konieczko" -----Original Message----- From: Rick & Renee Robertson Education Officials Reconsider Policies On Grade Retention By Lynn Olson After a decade-long trend toward stricter policies requiring low-achieving pupils to repeat a grade, a number of school leaders are beginning to reassess the wisdom of such practices and call for a more flexible approach. Moves to overhaul student-retention rules are under way in several big-city school districts. And at least one state school chief is considering denying certain kinds of grants to districts in his state that fail to abandon such policies. For critics of mandatory retention, these developments offer hope that policymakers are starting to heed a large body of research indicating that retention does not benefit students--and may actually cause them to drop out. "In a lot of places, where standards have been raised during the last decade," says Joan McCarty First, president of the National Coalition of Advocates for Students, "the remedial strategy of choice has been retention. And that means it's made it much more difficult for kids who were having trouble in the first place." While there is still no widespread movement away from the practice, critics of retention policies can cite a number of gains for their position over the past month or two. a.. This month, the chancellor of the New York City school system announced that he would end a mandatory, citywide policy that automatically held students back in grades 4 and 7 if they scored poorly on standardized tests. According to Chancellor Joseph A. Fernandez, evaluations of the district's "promotional gates" program suggested that it had "no appreciable value in fostering student advancement." In fact, he said, it may have encouraged youngsters to drop out. b.. In a report released in April, Harold Raynolds Jr., the Massachusetts commissioner of education, urged school districts in that state to cease retaining low-achieving students in grade. He cited research showing that the practice does not work. Mr. Raynolds said his department would consider awarding discretionary grants only to districts that have adopted alternatives to retention. c.. In a separate report, the Massachusetts Advocacy Council recommended that the Boston school system cease linking promotions to students' scores on standardized tests and introduce alternatives to retention in every school. The system's interim superintendent, Joseph McDonough, has sent a memo to area superintendents asking them to identify the reasons some schools have high or low retention rates. The memo directs principals to meet with teachers to devise alternatives to current practices. Boston has also backed away from a policy, scheduled to take effect this school year, under which students would have been retained in grades 1, 5, 8, and 12, based primarily on their scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. The district's current policy is tied to scores on the Degrees of Reading Power test. d.. And in Chicago, the school district is reevaluating its promotion policy as part of a systemwide reform effort mandated by the state legislature. An April draft of the revised policy would eliminate the use of students' scores on the Iowa Basic Skills Test as a primary criterion for holding students back in grades K-8. Instead, students would be retained based on their report cards and the judgments of teachers and principals. From: "Dan & Judy Konieczko" To: "ClearingHouse" Subject: [education-consumers] Fw: Retention Research - 2 of 4 Date sent: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:45:44 -0500 Send reply to: "Dan & Judy Konieczko" - -----Original Message----- From: Rick & Renee Robertson a.. The draft policy portrays retention as a "last resort" and describes a number of steps that schools would have to take before they could retain or demote a student. Once such a decision was made, the draft adds, the school would be obligated to offer "different instructional strategies, different curricular materials, and a different sequence of instruction to ensure that students who repeat the same grade do not do so in the same way." The draft is expected to be sent out for review by Chicago's local school councils this month. Estimate of 2.4 Million Pupils There are no reliable national data on the number of public-school students retained in grade each year. But Lorrie A. Shepard, the co-editor of a 1989 book on the subject, esti4mates that as many as 2.4 million students annually--or 6 percent of K-12 pupils--may be held back. That means that by the 9th grade, approximately 50 percent of all U.S. students have failed at least one grade or are no longer in school, says the professor of education at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Collectively, Ms. Shepard estimates, school districts spend nearly $10 billion a year to pay for the extra year of schooling necessitated by holding so many students back. Retention rates vary widely from one school system to another, and from school to school and grade to grade within a district. A study of retention rates in 29 urban school systems in 1987-88 found that nonpromotion rates for 1st graders ranged from a low of 1 percent to a high of 23 percent. For 9th graders, the rates ranged from 1 percent to 63 percent. The study, conducted for the Council of the Great City Schools by Joseph F. Gastright, head of testing services for the Cincinnati Public Schools, also found that the poorest districts economically were two times more likely than their wealthier counterparts to fail students in grades K-12. Researchers have also found that students who are male, black, or Hispanic are much more likely to be retained than female or white students. Ms. Shepard asserts that the use of formal retention policies increased during the 1980's, in part because of the "educational excellence'' movement. Policies that tie promotion to test scores have been particularly common in the South, in such states as Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, all of which were active in the reform efforts of the 80's. Faulty Assumptions? Traditionally, educators have offered a number of reasons for holding students back a year. By forcing academically troubled youngsters to repeat a grade, it was assumed that they would mature, master deficient skills, and be less likely to fail when they reached the next grade. In this way, it was surmised, the dropout rate would actually be lowered. Retention was also viewed as a way to ensure the competence of high-school graduates and to introduce standards and accountability into the educational system. For years, educators derided the practice of "social promotion," in which students were passed on from grade to grade, regardless of performance. But a growing body of research suggests that none of the assumptions about retention may hold true. In a 1989 synthesis of 63 controlled studies--in which retained students were followed and compared with children of similar achievement who went directly on to the next grade--C. Thomas Holmes found that nonpromoted youngsters actually performed more poorly on average than those who had not repeated a grade. From: "Dan & Judy Konieczko" To: Subject: Fw: Retention Research Date sent: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 20:31:24 -0500 Arthur, You got lucky. I was just about to send this long version to the recycle bin. The genesis of this is that Renee Robertson asked for any retention research and she is not a subscriber to ECC. I emailed her and asked for any information she gleaned about real retention research and told her I would try to get it posted to ECC. A couple of the forms may have been too long, but here is Renee's original post to me. There is a lot of good data here, but as I noted earlier it focuses ONLY on the retained and not the impact of consequences on others in the classroom. Evident too is the reliance on retention as a consequence for failing to achieve, often in systems with no clear objective academic standards, as opposed to progression as a reward for achieving those objective standards. I am a believer that students should be promoted when they demonstrate proficiency in a field, regardless of the age. Some will rise faster and some will rise slower, but we really punish the high achievers for failing to promote them and boring them to mediocrity as much as we punish the others by unstructured retention. Hope this data is as useful to you as it is to me. Dan -----Original Message----- From: Rick & Renee Robertson To: Dan & Judy Konieczko Date: Monday, March 15, 1999 12:05 AM Subject: Re: Retention Research Hello Mr. Konieczko, After doing a little searching on the web i was able to find the following information on retention. I am not an ECC subscriber so i will paste and pass it the info. on to you. Hope it is helpful. Mrs. R. Robertson Report Questions Academic Effectiveness of Grade Retention -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ORONO, Maine -- Retaining a child in the same grade for a second year is neither academically nor economically justified, according to a new report from the University of Maine College of Education & Human Development. The adoption of stricter promotion standards, particularly following the 1983 Nation at Risk report on sub-standard student performance, has resulted in the unintended consequence of higher retention rates rather than increased student motivation or improved school effectiveness, according to the report, "The Impact of Repeating a Grade: A Review of Research in the '90s," from the College's Center for Research and Evaluation. An estimated 5 to 7 percent of public school students are retained in the United States each year, and by ninth grade half of the nation's public school students have either failed a grade or left school, according to the review of six recent longitudinal studies. The report conclude that retention by itself does not benefit academically at-risk students to an extent that justifies burdening them with an extra year of schooling and costing the nation's schools an estimated $10 billion in annual retention costs. Maine's grade retention rate of 1.42 percent in 1995-96 is down from 2.72 percent 10 years ago and is below the estimated national average. But that's still too high given the research and collective wisdom on the ineffectiveness of holding students back, according to Paula Moore, director of UMaine's Center for Early Literacy and a veteran public school teacher and administrator. "This review of the literature confirms what we have know for two decades -- that retention does not work to raise achievement or to fix learning difficulties. However, it appears to be the best short-term solution to most schools, especially in the wake of widespread public support for stricter grade promotion standards," Moore says. It's important to consider the consequences of retention while advancing reform initiatives, such as the Maine Learning Results, notes Moore. Research indicates that such accountability measures tend to increase retention, but not necessarily achievement, she explains. In addition, Maine's lower retention rates relative to the rest of the country might mask other indirect forms of retention, according to Moore, such as delayed entry to kindergarten, transition grades, multi-age classrooms, and referrals to special education. "The alternative to retention - closer observation and teaching to the needs of individual students - is labor intensive, but we know that's what is best for the child in the long run, " Moore says. The majority of grade retention in Maine, as nationally, is in kindergarten and first grade. This fall, Moore is spearheading a statewide survey of K-5 teachers, principals and special educators to assess their attitudes on why, despite research and collective wisdom, Maine schools continue to retain students. Involving educators up to grade five will give a long-range view of the effectiveness of repeating kindergarten or first grade. The goal of the survey is to determine what factors in the school culture and context contribute to the continuing tendency to retain students in the same grade for a second year. Overall, the studies reviewed for the report found neither decreased achievement nor improved performance as a result of retention. The performance of retained children tended to match that of academically at-risk promoted students, and most studies found that both of these groups continued to be significantly out-performed by regularly promoted students. Four of the six studies reviewed conclude that retention is an ineffective practice with the extra year not only failing to bring retainees up to grade level expectations, but failing even to give them a performance edge over their promoted but academically lagging peers. Two studies conclude that retention can be beneficial, if students are not retained more than one year, if parents are supportive, and if retention is coupled with additional, intensive remedial assistance. The report was prepared by research staff members Susan Woodward and Tonya Kimmey. Among other information from the report reviewing recent national research: a.. An estimated 40 percent of males and 20 percent of females in the United States have been retained by age 14. b.. A high percent of retained students entered kindergarten or first grade unprepared for school work and were economically and socially disadvantaged. c.. In terms of personal adjustment, first-grade retainees showed gains in academic expectations and liking for school, but these gains evaporated in seventh grade. d.. Struggling students will not fully succeed in school by simply going over the same material twice. e.. Students retained in kindergarten or first grade and those who had been recommended for retention but were socially promoted scored basically the same on achievement scores in fourth grade, but both groups scored significantly lower than their classmates who had been regularly promoted. f.. Retained children are more likely to have parents who did not graduate from high school; have parents who were not involved in their schooling; have moved and changed schools. (Copies of the report, "The Impact of Repeating a Grade: A Review of Research in the 90s," are available from the UMaine Center for Research & Evaluation, (207) 581-2493). Released:September 29, 1997 Contact: Kay Hyatt, (207) 581-2761 ED267899 86 Grade Retention and Promotion. Author: Steiner, Karen ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Urbana, Ill. THIS DIGEST WAS CREATED BY ERIC, THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ERIC, CONTACT ACCESS ERIC 1-800-LET-ERIC Many educators advocate that public schools should stress mastery of basic skills and adopt clear measures of scholastic competence. In many school districts, children now must pass minimum competency tests in order to progress from one grade to the next, and children who fail are likely to be retained. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW When graded schools began to replace the one-room schoolhouse in the mid-19th century, students were promoted on "merit," the mastery of an inflexible academic standard for each grade level. Approximately every other child was retained at some time during his/her first 8 years of school (Rose and others l983). Around the l930's, however, changing attitudes toward the role of schooling and the psychology of the individual student prompted a shift toward an approach called "social promotion," in which children passed to the next grade with their age peers, receiving remedial academic help when necessary. Among the reasons for this policy change was the concern of social scientists that retention might be damaging to children's social and emotional development. During the last few decades, opponents of social promotion have argued that the absence of a fixed academic standard symbolizes a disregard for achievement--and that this disregard undermines children's motivation to learn. Consequently, schools have tended to return to promotion based on mastery of grade-level objectives. As a result, the number of children retained in grade has increased. For example, after adopting a pupil-progression plan based on academic mastery, four times as many Atlanta first graders were retained than previously (Rose and others l983). Pinellas County, Florida doubled or tripled its normal retention rate after implementing a competency-based promotion policy (Eligett and Tocco l983). GRADE RETENTION RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY Research on grade retention, focusing on the effects on children's academic perfomance and on social and personal adjustment, has been inconclusive. Moreover, methodological problems inherent in the bulk of grade retention studies may invalidate even those findings (Jackson 1975; Chafe 1984; Labaree 1983a, 1983b). Two of the three types of research designs are biased either for or against grade retention. The first design, comparing outcomes for retained and promoted students, favors promotion because it compares students having academic difficulties with students having fewer problems (as evidenced by their promotion). The second design, comparing retained students before and after their promotion, is biased in favor of grade retention because it fails to control for possible improvement resulting from maturational or environmental causes other than the retention experience itself. While most studies involve one of these two designs, a third type compares randomly promoted or retained students, all of whom are experiencing difficulties. Although this design is the only one that can ensure valid results, it is used rarely, perhaps because school administrators and educators are unwilling to assign children to a "second-best" learning situation. RETENTION CRITERIA First graders are retained more often than children in other grades (Rose and others 1983). From first through sixth grade, retention rates decline. They increase again in the seventh grade and at the high school level. Such observational data may be helpful in predicting educational trends, but research has little to say about which children are most likely to benefit from retention or whether retention is beneficial at all. The decision to retain a child is based on teacher ratings of social maturity and student performance on objective achievement tests. However, other factors, such as socioeconomic level, classroom behavior, and the teacher's educational philosophy, may influence the retention decision (Plummer and others 1984). To standardize retention criteria, Light (l977) has developed a scale including l9 categories of data pertinent to the retention decision. Lieberman (l980) has generated a similar model which includes child, family, and school factors. Other observers suggest that important contextual variables for retention may include personal and home factors (such as the child's chronological age, social-emotional and physical maturity, and parental attitudes). School-related factors, such as achievement norms, the approach to instruction, and the number of previous retentions, may also affect outcomes for the child. POLICY DECISIONS Although evidence fails to support the connection between merit promotion and student achievement or motivation, there is no proof that such policies are not related to achievement--and many schools have instituted promotion standards based on mastery of specific grade-level objectives. In a survey of five school systems that recently established programs with raised promotional standards, Labaree (1983a, 1983b) found a variety of approaches. The most inflexible program, implemented by New York City, requires that fourth and seventh graders score above a fixed point in the reading portion of the California Achievement Test for promotion. No other factors are considered. On the other hand, Milwaukee's promotion policy suggests that retention be considered, not mandated, for first through third graders who are unable to read at a set primer level. For fourth through sixth graders, math and language arts abilities are added to reading ability as possible determining factors. This program considers a range of variables for retention. SUGGESTIONS FOR PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Without conclusive research evidence, promotion policies are likely to be based on social values and philosophical orientations. Labaree (1983b) suggests the following for decision makers formulating such policies: --Base eligibility for promotion on multiple measures rather than a single test --Construct measures of achievement that reflect the special character of the learning process within a given curriculum. (In other words, the best measures are not always the ones offering the greatest uniformity) --Formulate in advance a rigorous method of evaluation and the criterion for success. Contingency plans should be made in case the program does not achieve stated aims --Avoid the tendency to teach only "the basics" or toward a given competency test. The curriculum should remain varied and challenging --Include the average child while attempting to raise the level of the low-achiever. Higher promotional standards should be part of a larger effort to achieve high achievement for all students --Stress the quality of instruction for retained pupils. Retention should not become an end in itself What matters most is not the specifics of any given promotional policy, but the overall effectiveness of schools. Policy makers should view retention and promotion procedures in the larger context of the learning climate and weigh such factors as inservice training, administrative leadership, curriculum objectives, and quality of instruction in any decisions. This Digest was prepared for the ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, 1986. ---------- This publication was prepared with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under OERI contract. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI or the Department of Education. AFT Report Assails Schools' Promotion, Retention Policies By Millicent Lawton For one of the nation's major teacher unions to come out against the unearned promotion of students to the next grade is not surprising. No overburdened educator wants to take on the business unfinished by the previous year's teacher. But last week, the American Federation of Teachers issued a national study of school promotion and retention policies that not only assails so-called social promotion, but also frowns on the alternative--holding students back. "The fact is, neither social promotion nor retention is the answer if the answer we're seeking is getting kids to achieve," Sandra Feldman, the president of the 950,000-member union, said in releasing the report in Washington. 'Clear Message To Promote' That is the same conclusion that some education researchers have also reached. Unearned promotion, often advocated to prevent students from falling behind a peer group, makes for graduates unable to do simple math. But retention, on the other hand, has been associated with an increased risk of dropping out altogether. Instead, some researchers argue, schools need to intervene before the day when the choice is between promotion and retention--one of the approaches recommended in the new AFT report. ("Promote or Retain? Pendulum for Students Swings Back Again," June 11, 1997.) During the past two years, the AFT survey, the first such national study, looked at the grade-promotion policies in 85 of the nation's largest districts, including the 40 biggest. Seventy-eight of the districts had formal, written school board policies, which ranged from three paragraphs to 30 pages. There was little consistency among them, the report says. None of the districts surveyed had an explicit policy of social promotion, according to the report. But just about every district had an "implicit policy of social promotion," Ms. Feldman said, with districts saying that holding students back was an option of last resort. For More Information: "Passing on Failure: District Promotion Policies and Practices'' is available for $5 from the American Federation of Teachers, Order Department, 555 New Jersey Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20001; (202) 879-4473. Ask for Item 249. Some districts put clear limits on retaining students, which, she said, "is another clear message to promote socially." In Orange County, Fla., which encompasses Orlando, just one retention--during the elementary grades--is allowed for a given student. In Houston, students may be held back no more than once in grades K-4 and once in grades 5-8. The survey also found that districts' criteria for promotion and retention are often vague, lacking specific academic standards against which students are judged. The policy in the Clark County, Nev., district, which includes Las Vegas, says that to be promoted, a student's progress "should be continuous and student advancement through the curriculum should be according to the student's demonstrated ability." Standards and Remediation Teacher-assigned grades and teacher recommendations were the most commonly used pieces of evidence in making decisions about holding a student back, whether the student was in elementary, middle, or high school, according to the survey. Yet, among the 85 districts surveyed, the teacher had the final say on promotion for some or all grade levels in just three school districts: Cartwright and Glendale, Ariz., and Lake Washington, Wash. Few districts mandate programs to help students who are in danger of failing or for those who have been retained, as education experts recommend. Just 15 percent of the districts surveyed mention tutoring in their policies, and only about 13 percent cite alternative programs and strategies, such as transitional classes, extended instructional time, or individual plans for students. About half of the policies note summer school as an option. But, Ms. Feldman said, funding for summer school has often been cut dramatically by districts, with districts asking students to pay to attend summer sessions. In offering solutions to the promotion-retention dilemma, the AFT calls for high-quality preschool and kindergarten programs for all children--or, at minimum, for the neediest children. The union in its report also continues its campaign of advocating that students be held to explicit, rigorous, grade-by-grade standards and that all elementary teachers be sufficiently trained in how to teach reading. In addition, the report calls for early identification and intervention for pupils having academic problems and the use of remedial approaches. The report was welcomed by at least one researcher who has studied the retention issue. A survey of so many districts--and so many of the nation's largest--is helpful for documenting their disparate practices, said Arthur J. Reynolds, an associate professor of social work and child and family studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. (See a related commentary, Grade Retention Doesn't Work," in This Week's News.) And to the extent that the report "calls attention to prevention programs and beginning in early childhood," he said, "that's important." Grade Retention Doesn't Work By Arthur Reynolds, Judy Temple, and Ann McCoy Three reasons why—and what should be tried instead. Grade retention is making a comeback. The Chicago public schools and other districts across the country have decided in recent months to get tough with underperforming students by making them repeat a grade. President Clinton, in his 1997 State of the Union Address, encouraged the wide-scale retention or nonpromotion of students who earn low scores on standardized tests when he urged reliance on test scores as a means "to help us end social promotion ... for no child should move from grade school to junior high or junior high to high school until he or she is ready." But despite the current vogue, educators, parents, policymakers, and taxpayers should feel apprehensive about increased reliance on retention as an instrument of reform. While we agree that proactive reform to improve educational performance is a good idea, grade retentionat least as it's typically implementedis not the answer. Since the early 1970s, scores of studies have demonstrated that retention does not have positive effects for most low-achieving students. Recent studies, including our own analyses of Chicago data, indicate that grade retention does not improve students' chances for educational success. In fact, they indicate that retention often is harmful to scholastic development, especially if it occurs early. There are three reasons why grade retention is an ineffective educational policy for most students. First, the decision to retain is often made haphazardly and for nonacademic reasons. The fact that boys, minorities, low-income children, and children rated low in social adjustment are more likely to be retained, even after considering academic performance, suggests that some children may be singled out unfairly. Moreover, the use of arbitrary cut-off scores on standardized tests to determine retention status is not only restrictive but holds students alone responsible for what may in fact be caused by poor instruction or disruptive learning environments. Second, retained children do not do better academically after they are made to repeat a grade. Our own ongoing longitudinal study of 1,539 Chicago schoolchildren who graduated from public kindergartens in 1986 indicates that children who are retained do not improve their academic performance relative to other students their age or the other students in their grade. In a study just completed, we found that over time the students fall further and further behind--by as much as eight months in achievement at the end of elementary school. Students who are retained because they are among the lowest-performing students in their original grades commonly are again found near the bottom of the test-score ladder when compared with their new same-grade peers. The fact that boys, minorities, and low-income children are more likely to be retained suggests that some children may be singled out unfairly. Finally, grade retention is an unwise policy because it has the unintended effect of contributing to the school dropout problem. The well-documented link between being retained in a grade and dropping out of school has received an insufficient amount of attention. Many students (including those who do well in school) find that 13 years of school is long enough. For retained students, though, the finish line is much farther down the road. In our research, grade retention greatly increased the likelihood of a student's dropping out of school. In comparing students with similar academic profiles beginning in the early grades, we found that 30 percent of those in our sample who were retained had dropped out of school by age 17. Only 21 percent of students who were not retained had dropped out by this age. Thus, grade retention was associated with a 42 percent increase in early school departure. This relation between retention and dropping out also has been found in other studies. If a parallel negative side effect were found for a drug treatment or medical procedure, there would be an uproar of protest. Not in education. We appreciate the fact that the threat of grade retention may serve as a "stick" in some cases for students to perform better and for teachers and administrators to offer better instruction. The threat of required participation in intensive annual summer school programs may be equally effective while offering students additional learning opportunities. Once students are retained, however, they usually get no special help with their schooling. They are often placed in low academic tracks only to repeat the previous year's instruction and ultimately disengage from school. Although evidence from 25 years of research shows that grade retention is ineffective, promoting low-achieving children without remediation isn't the answer either. Alternatives to retention or social promotion include promotion plus tutoring, summer school, or increased parent involvement, as well as offering nongraded instructional programs. But preventing learning problems before they get started is the optimal and most cost-effective intervention strategy. And this requires a long-term commitment. Alternatives to retention or social promotion include promotion plus tutoring, summer school, or increased parent involvement, as well as offering nongraded instructional programs. One example of a successful alternative strategy is the Chicago public schools' own Child Parent Center and Expansion Program, a 30-year-old comprehensive intervention effort from preschool to 3rd grade that emphasizes basic skills, parent involvement, and small class sizes. One of the great benefits of a child's participation in this program, we have found, is that that he or she will be much less likely than nonparticipants to repeat a grade and to receive special education services, primarily because the program improves children's school achievement and family involvement in learning. Expansion of such prevention programs to include as many children as possible will lessen the need for remedial programs and practices like grade retention. Successful programs like these deserve top funding priority. In medicine, treatments shown to be ineffective or to have serious unintended consequences do not gain approval from government agencies and are discarded or revised. Retention as an educational treatment has not followed such established scientific traditions. Children with learning difficulties have the most to lose from such a practice. We urge educational professionals to implement programs and reform strategies that have proven effective. Education Officials Reconsider Policies On Grade Retention By Lynn Olson After a decade-long trend toward stricter policies requiring low-achieving pupils to repeat a grade, a number of school leaders are beginning to reassess the wisdom of such practices and call for a more flexible approach. Moves to overhaul student-retention rules are under way in several big-city school districts. And at least one state school chief is considering denying certain kinds of grants to districts in his state that fail to abandon such policies. For critics of mandatory retention, these developments offer hope that policymakers are starting to heed a large body of research indicating that retention does not benefit students--and may actually cause them to drop out. "In a lot of places, where standards have been raised during the last decade," says Joan McCarty First, president of the National Coalition of Advocates for Students, "the remedial strategy of choice has been retention. And that means it's made it much more difficult for kids who were having trouble in the first place." While there is still no widespread movement away from the practice, critics of retention policies can cite a number of gains for their position over the past month or two. a.. This month, the chancellor of the New York City school system announced that he would end a mandatory, citywide policy that automatically held students back in grades 4 and 7 if they scored poorly on standardized tests. According to Chancellor Joseph A. Fernandez, evaluations of the district's "promotional gates" program suggested that it had "no appreciable value in fostering student advancement." In fact, he said, it may have encouraged youngsters to drop out. b.. In a report released in April, Harold Raynolds Jr., the Massachusetts commissioner of education, urged school districts in that state to cease retaining low-achieving students in grade. He cited research showing that the practice does not work. Mr. Raynolds said his department would consider awarding discretionary grants only to districts that have adopted alternatives to retention. c.. In a separate report, the Massachusetts Advocacy Council recommended that the Boston school system cease linking promotions to students' scores on standardized tests and introduce alternatives to retention in every school. The system's interim superintendent, Joseph McDonough, has sent a memo to area superintendents asking them to identify the reasons some schools have high or low retention rates. The memo directs principals to meet with teachers to devise alternatives to current practices. Boston has also backed away from a policy, scheduled to take effect this school year, under which students would have been retained in grades 1, 5, 8, and 12, based primarily on their scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. The district's current policy is tied to scores on the Degrees of Reading Power test. d.. And in Chicago, the school district is reevaluating its promotion policy as part of a systemwide reform effort mandated by the state legislature. An April draft of the revised policy would eliminate the use of students' scores on the Iowa Basic Skills Test as a primary criterion for holding students back in grades K-8. Instead, students would be retained based on their report cards and the judgments of teachers and principals. The draft policy portrays retention as a "last resort" and describes a number of steps that schools would have to take before they could retain or demote a student. Once such a decision was made, the draft adds, the school would be obligated to offer "different instructional strategies, different curricular materials, and a different sequence of instruction to ensure that students who repeat the same grade do not do so in the same way." The draft is expected to be sent out for review by Chicago's local school councils this month. Estimate of 2.4 Million Pupils There are no reliable national data on the number of public-school students retained in grade each year. But Lorrie A. Shepard, the co-editor of a 1989 book on the subject, esti4mates that as many as 2.4 million students annually--or 6 percent of K-12 pupils--may be held back. That means that by the 9th grade, approximately 50 percent of all U.S. students have failed at least one grade or are no longer in school, says the professor of education at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Collectively, Ms. Shepard estimates, school districts spend nearly $10 billion a year to pay for the extra year of schooling necessitated by holding so many students back. Retention rates vary widely from one school system to another, and from school to school and grade to grade within a district. A study of retention rates in 29 urban school systems in 1987-88 found that nonpromotion rates for 1st graders ranged from a low of 1 percent to a high of 23 percent. For 9th graders, the rates ranged from 1 percent to 63 percent. The study, conducted for the Council of the Great City Schools by Joseph F. Gastright, head of testing services for the Cincinnati Public Schools, also found that the poorest districts economically were two times more likely than their wealthier counterparts to fail students in grades K-12. Researchers have also found that students who are male, black, or Hispanic are much more likely to be retained than female or white students. Ms. Shepard asserts that the use of formal retention policies increased during the 1980's, in part because of the "educational excellence'' movement. Policies that tie promotion to test scores have been particularly common in the South, in such states as Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, all of which were active in the reform efforts of the 80's. Faulty Assumptions? Traditionally, educators have offered a number of reasons for holding students back a year. By forcing academically troubled youngsters to repeat a grade, it was assumed that they would mature, master deficient skills, and be less likely to fail when they reached the next grade. In this way, it was surmised, the dropout rate would actually be lowered. Retention was also viewed as a way to ensure the competence of high-school graduates and to introduce standards and accountability into the educational system. For years, educators derided the practice of "social promotion," in which students were passed on from grade to grade, regardless of performance. But a growing body of research suggests that none of the assumptions about retention may hold true. In a 1989 synthesis of 63 controlled studies--in which retained students were followed and compared with children of similar achievement who went directly on to the next grade--C. Thomas Holmes found that nonpromoted youngsters actually performed more poorly on average than those who had not repeated a grade. Mr. Holmes, a professor of educational administration at the University of Georgia, also found that retained students generally performed worse than their matched peers on follow-up measures of social adjustment, behavior, school attitudes, and attendance. The research indicates that most children perceive retention as punishment, which makes them feel8"sad," "bad," "upset," or "embarrassed"--emotions that opponents say are manifested in later behavioral difficulties. Such problems, critics of grade retention point out, often culminate in a student's quitting school. In explaining his reversal of New York City's policy, Mr. Fernandez noted that a 1986 study found that 40 percent of the city's students who were retained dropped out before the end of high school, compared with 25 percent of students with comparable reading levels who had not been held back. Similar findings have emerged from separate studies in Chicago, Boston, and Dade County, Fla. In each instance, retained or overage students were approximately twice as likely to leave school prior to graduation as their nonretained peers. Other studies have found that dropouts are five times more likely to have repeated a grade than high-school graduates. Students who repeat two grades have a probability of dropping out of nearly 100 percent, according to Ms. Shepard of the University of Colorado. Added Services It remains unclear exactly why traditional retention practices apparently do not work. In addition to the impairment of subsequent learning that may be traced to the emotional effects of holding students back, Ms. Shepherd suggests, a policy that forces youngsters to go through the same material again is a "crude and ineffective way to individualize instruction.'' The position of the National Association of Black School Educators is that school districts have an obligation to provide retained students with instruction that is "different" from what they received the first time around, says J. Jerome Harris, president of the organization and superintendent of the Atlanta Public Schools. "But that policy, we think, is violated by most systems," he asserts. Some educators maintain that if students are given help and assistance in addition to being retained, retention may be effective. Mr. Harris's district, for example, is preparing the equivalent of an individualized education program, like those employed in special education, for every child who is not promoted. And in the Philadelphia school district--which retains some 22 percent of students in grades 1-8 each year, based on a combination of teacher judgments and test scores--pupils who are not promoted are eligible to attend summer school and receive continued support services during the year, such as tutoring and mentoring. Whether those services are "sufficient to override the generally negative effects of retention by itself is still an open question," says Spencer H. Davis, director of the office of assessment for the school district, "and we've been looking at that." Philadelphia has also begun an ungraded program in 19 middle schools, in which students with multiple retentions or other chronic problems are paired up with four teachers and an assistant who can provide them with more individualized instruction over a period of several years. According to the analysis by Mr. Holmes of the University of Georgia, only 9 of the 63 controlled studies of the subject showed overall positive results from holding pupils back. Inel15lmost of those cases, he found, the retained students had received extra help through individualized programs and smaller classes, while the promoted students had not. Even so, the researcher notes, the apparent benefits tended to diminish over time, so that differences in performance between the promoted and nonpromoted youngsters disappeared. Ms. Shepard and other critics of traditional retention practices argue that the alternative to retaining students is not simply to promote them, but to promote them while providing continued assistance support--much like that which Philadelphia and other districts offer pupils who repeat a grade. "Instead of 'social promotion,' which is sort of 'promote them and don't pay any attention to their lack of skills,"' she says, "we talk about normal grade-promotion plus." Early-Grades Shift The movement away from rigid retention policies appears strongest in the early grades. In recent years, states such as Georgia have backed away from controversial kindergarten-retention policies based on test scores. And the wide-ranging school-reform legislation enacted this spring in Kentucky replaces grades K-3 with a "primary school program" in which children will progress at their own pace, in multi-age groupings. "The development of kids at that age is very rapid and uneven, and we felt that it was inappropriate to retain kids between the 1st and 2nd grade," said Jack D. Foster, secretary of the education and humanities cabinet for the state. Kentucky pupils will have to pass a test, however, for entry into the 4th grade. Although lawmakers did not want to "instill a sense of failure" in children from the beginning, Mr. Foster said, they sought to ensure that children had gained the necessary competencies by a certain point. The Mississippi legislature has also approved a pilot program for ungraded classrooms in grades 1-3. In Florida, the House Education Committee has passed a measure that would eliminate the test now required for the promotion of students from grade 3 to grade 4, and replace it with a system of continuous progress for all youngsters up to grade 5. According to a staff member for the committee, up to one-third of Florida students are now retained by the time they reach the 4th grade. In Boston, school officials are studying eight elementary schools with few or no retentions in the 1st grade to determine what they are doing differently. "I'd like to have better information on why there are some schools where the retention rate of 1st graders is very low or nonexistent, and in other schools it's 17 percent or higher," says Joyce M. Grant, Boston's deputy superintendent for curriculum and instruction. New York City's new policy will offer 3rd graders who do not meet promotion standards a chance to improve through summer school and after-school help during 4th grade. Participants in the program will not be held back, regardless of their performance. But children who refuse to participate could be forced to repeat the 3rd grade, Mr. Fernandez said. In addition, individual schools can still retain students in any grade, based on teacher and principal judgments. Robin Willner, the district's executive director for strategic planning, explains that the policy is designed to encourage teachers to weigh a variety of factors in making retention decisions, and to include a child's parents in the process. Says Ms. Willner: "The evidence clearly demonstrates that blanket retention policies don't work. Research does not say that every single child is hurt by retention." Public Beliefs, Peer Pressure Despite such stirrings, advocates of more flexible approaches note that changing the public's ingrained belief in the efficacy of retention may prove difficult. According to a 1986 Gallup poll, 72 percent of citizens surveyed favored stricter grade-to-grade promotion standards. At a public hearing this month in Georgia on various state academic requirements, only one person spoke out against a rule requiring students to pass a statewide test in reading and mathematics to progress from grade 3 to grade 4, according to Stan Bernknopf, director of the education department's division of assessment. "There is an expression of concern from time to time," he says, "but it is not, or has not to this day, been an overwhelming outcry." Richard C. Owens, a member of the Georgia Board of Education, acknowledges that the research on retention is largely negative. But, he adds, "I know some students in my local school district who were retained, and I don't think it hurt them." In Cleveland, meanwhile, the school board is considering stiffening its promotion policies, despite the objections of Superintendent Alfred D. Tutela, who calls retention "one of the most oppressive activities that a school system does." "The adults get paid for kids to learn," he says, "and then we penalize the kids for not learning." One factor contributing to the widespread support for tough promotion policies, says Ms. Shepard, is that teachers feel pressured to retain students by their colleagues in the next grade. "It's very hard for a teacher to examine her own beliefs about whether retention is a good thing or not, because she has to fight her colleagues," the University of Colorado researcher asserts. "One of the most powerful messages to new teachers who innocently send on students is to have the humiliating experience of having those students sent back to them," she adds. "They learn in a really 'imprinting' way never to do that again." Another problem, according to Ms. Shepard, is that most alternatives to retention cost money, which must be requested in a district's budget on a line-item basis. In contrast, the cost of retention is hidden in a school system's general education budget and billed to the state in the form of per-pupil costs. Regardless of the arguments for and against current retention policies, another educator suggests, the prevalence of the practice points to the deficiencies in the education afforded many students. "Anyway you look at it," observes Lynn Cornett, vice president for state services for the Southern Regional Education Board, "the retention rates do tell us that there are large numbers of students who are not prepared to move on to the next grade, and that seems to be what's important about it." Stay Back, Drop Out Is retention bad for students? Some researchers say yes. Retention can actually harm academic achievement, according to Lorrie A. Shepard, the interim dean of the education school at the University of Colorado at Boulder. She takes issue with the use of the term "social promotion" because it assumes the decision to promote is made for social reasons. She argues that for an underachieving child, promotion is in the child's best interests academically. She cited recent analyses of existing research that show that when retained children went on to the next grade, they performed worse on average than if they had gone on without repeating. For that matter, students who are held back are more likely to drop out, many experts agree. Ms. Shepard's own research has found that to be the case. Three large-scale studies she and another researcher conducted in the 1980s looked at 20,000 to 80,000 students each. The researchers found that of students with equally poor achievement--and controlling for other background characteristics associated with dropping out, such as race, ethnicity, and gender--students who repeated a year were 20 percent to 30 percent more likely to drop out of school. Instead of retaining students, Ms. Shepard argues, schools should provide extra instructional help, before- or- after-school programs, summer school, or no-cost peer tutoring. If some of those options sound pricey, the cost of retention can be high, too; the average spending for a year of public schooling is about $5,500 per pupil, according to federal education statistics. And Ms. Shepard and others take a dim view, for several reasons, of parallel tracks or pullout programs for students needing help with skills. Such approaches may offer a watered-down curriculum. Or, if students are plopped back into the regular classroom at midyear, they may be at a disadvantage if they have not been covering the same material. Even transitional classes are "just retention under a different name," contends C. Thomas Holmes, an education professor at the University of Georgia in Athens. Mr. Holmes and others offer multiage classrooms as another alternative to the traditional promote-or-retain scenario. But according to some researchers at Johns Hopkins University, having a student repeat a grade is not always a negative practice. They found in a study of inner-city Baltimore students that those who repeated a grade in elementary school saw their grades, test scores, and self-esteem improve. The longitudinal study is also expected to yield information on how these students fare as they grow older. "Repeating the year gave them a chance to consolidate their skills," said Karl L. Alexander, a sociology professor running the study. Mr. Alexander emphasized, however, that retention is not a cure-all. The students who realized some benefits from retention were those kept back just one year. Even so, while they moved from failing to passing, they remained behind peers their same age and were still having "serious problems," Mr. Alexander said. Retention alone does not eliminate the student's difficulties, he said. Ideally, Mr. Alexander said, the student would be getting extra resources and attention to address academic deficits. While some point to the detrimental effects retention can have on self-esteem, Mr. Alexander speculated that such negative social effects may have been eased in Baltimore because retention is fairly common and does not seem to make students social pariahs. By the students' eighth year of schooling, the Hopkins researchers found, four in 10 students had been retained at least once. And all in the backyard of state Delegate Fulton, who had so much trouble buying blinds. -----Original Message----- From: Dan & Judy Konieczko To: rcubed@cheerful.com Date: Monday, March 15, 1999 1:05 AM Subject: Retention Research I don't have any retention research, but a request. If you do find any would it be possible to post it to the ECC listserv? I have been looking for some hard data, myself, and anything you get would be useful for others. If you are not a subscriber to ECC, I would be happy to forward the post. Thanks. Dan Konieczko