University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Hawaii Board of Education's middle grade promotion policy: a policy implementation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Hawaii Board of Education's middle grade promotion policy: a policy implementation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

HAWAII BOARD OF EDUCATION’S MIDDLE GRADE PROMOTION POLICY:
A POLICY IMPLEMENTATION STUDY

by

Corey M. Barton

___________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Corey M. Barton
ii
DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my amazing wife, Lisa. She has supported me
through many years of school. Without her love, support, direction, and
encouragement I would never have finished. I love you Lisa! Thank You! And to my
daughter Joli, your nightly prayers for, “Daddy to finish his dissertation so we can go
to Disneyland,” have certainly helped. Your prayers have been answered. And
finally, to my new son Gabriel, your birth during this process has inspired me to
work hard and finish. Thank you my family!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Dominic Brewer, for his guidance and
support through the dissertation process. His extensive knowledge and expertise in
education policy implementation, K-12 education and accountability, and the
“educational pipeline” have been extremely important in shaping this study. Your
assistance and counsel have been invaluable.
I would also like to thank Dr. Melora Sundt, Dr. Stuart Gothold, and Dr.
Kathy Stowe, my committee members; their direction and constructive reviews have
been incredibly important to me and this study. Thank you for your time and
expertise.
I would also like to acknowledge and thank all 13 participants of this study.
Thank you for your time and important input. My hope is that you will help bring
important change and help shape a very valuable policy.
And lastly, I would like to thank my thematic dissertation group. Your
support, input, and jokes have made this a great and fun experience. I will miss the
late nights and early mornings. Go Team Dom!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
Abstract v
Chapter One: Statement of the Problem 1
Figure 1. Comparison of Graduation Percentages 4
Chapter Two: Literature Review 13
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 51
Chapter Four: Research Findings 58
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 111
References 134
Appendix: Interview Questions 147
v
ABSTRACT

To compete in the global economy, high school graduates need to be college
and career ready. The number of jobs for those with a high school diploma or less is
dwindling. Investing in education is more important than ever. According to Hawaii
Department of Education’s 2008 Superintendent’s Report, Hawaii has been
graduating only about 80% of its freshmen on time with lower performing schools
only graduating 60% on time. Hawaii’s eighth graders are transitioning to high
school with skill levels well below levels needed for success. To combat the problem
of unprepared eighth graders transitioning to high school, the Hawaii Board of
Education passed Policy 4502 in 2002, as part of its Promotion Policy 4500 Series.
Policy 4502 is titled, “Middle Level Education Promotion Policy.” Policy 4502 states
that in order for sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students to be promoted, they need
to have a passing grade in the four core subjects of language arts, math, science, and
social studies. The goal of the policy is to make sure students promoted to high
school are prepared. This study sought to look at how the Hawaii Department of
Education has implemented Policy 4502 and if it is achieving it goals. The purpose
of this study is to inform policy makers in the state of Hawaii of the effectiveness of
the implementation of Policy 4502.
Using a qualitative method of semi-structured interviews, 13 people were
interviewed from two higher and two lower performing middle/intermediate schools
and the high schools they feed into. Through these interviews this researcher found:
vi
• Teachers and administrators knew about the policy and could deduct the
goals of the policy
• Policy 4502 is not achieving some of its goals; students are still being
passed up to ninth grade that do not know basic math skills; ninth grade
retentions are not declining.
• The mechanisms (tools and targets) used to carry out the policy are not
aligned with the policy’s goals (Loeb & McEwan, 2006); this is due to
the subjectivity in the established criteria (teachers’ judgments of the
students’ abilities to perform benchmarks and/or the inconsistencies in
interpreting the performance benchmarks and/or the conflict between the
policy and their personal beliefs); teachers are inconsistent in
implementing/enforcing the policy. There are disincentives for schools
that do carry out the policy.
• Students are coming into middle/intermediate school behind; social
promotion in elementary schools undermines implementation at
middle/intermediate level.
• There is no district or state level support to help implement the policy;
schools are left to help the poor performing students by themselves; and
there is not enough resources and/or supports at the school level to
implement the policy with 100% effectiveness.
• Credit recovery is the intervention used for students who do not pass. The
philosophy behind credit recovery is to “find a way” to get the students
vii
the credits and move them forward. Many of the credit recovery options
are shorter courses with modified curriculum. Some are not taught by
teachers.
Considering these findings, this researcher recommends reviewing the policy
and making adjustments that focus on:
• Identify at-risk students early (McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano 2009; Marsh
et al., 2009; Jimerson, 2001).
• Provide timely and targeted prescribed interventions based on the needs
of the individual child (skills based or behavior based) before retention is
used as an intervention (McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano, 2009; Marsh et
al., 2009; Jimerson, 2001; Jacob, Stone, and Roderick, 2004).
• Establish a K-8 promotion policy aimed at ending social promotion and
linked to students’ skill levels (Marsh et al., 2006, 2009; McCombs,
Kirby, & Mariano 2009; Allensworth, 2004; Roderick and Nagaoka,
2005; Greene and Winters 2004, 2006).
• Link the policy to a test-based system for consistency, with an appeal
process that is monitored by district and state personnel; removing the
subjectivity of the teachers’ interpretations and/or conflicts with personal
beliefs (Marsh et al., 2006, 2009; McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano 2009;
Allensworth, 2004; Roderick and Nagaoka, 2005; Greene and Winters
2004, 2007).
viii
• Providing adequate funding and monitoring from the district and state
level (Berman and McLaughlin, 1978; McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano,
2009; Marsh et al., 2006, 2009).

1
CHAPTER ONE
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction
To compete in the global economy, high school graduates need to be college
and career ready. The number of jobs for people with a high school diploma or less is
dwindling. Investing in education is more important than ever.
Educational attainment helps individuals be competitive in the global job
market. In recent years, Americans have seen a shift to a global economy. A
generation ago, the average person in America simply needed a high school diploma
to earn enough money to be middle class (Kirst and Venezia, 2004). However, in
today’s global market the world is shrinking and the job market is becoming
increasingly competitive. With manufacturing and industrial jobs being shipped over
seas, Americans need a more skilled and targeted education that trains workers in
technical and critical thinking skills, if they want to enjoy the same quality of living
their parents did. In 2000, the median income for workers 25 and older with a
baccalaureate degree was $40,314 or 66% higher than workers with only a high
school diploma, $24,267 (Kirst and Venezia, 2004). Those with an associate’s degree
earned an average of $26,693 or 27% more than workers with a high school diploma.
In all, obtaining your bachelor’s degree can mean the difference of a million dollars
over the course of a lifetime. Over the course of a lifetime, workers who obtain there
bachelor’s degree earn more than a million dollars more than those with a high
2
school diploma (Brewer, Hentsche, & Eide, 2008). Clearly, education is important
to an individual’s economic well being.
There are also definite societal benefits to having an educated population.
According to the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2004),
educated and skilled citizens are less costly to the state social services such as
welfare and corrections resulting in lower costs to the state. The United States has
the largest prison population in the world and raising individual educational
attainment may lower crime rates.
According to the US Department of Justice, 68% of the inmates in state
prisons did not receive a high school diploma, (though 26% of the inmates reported
having completed their GED while incarcerated) with about 14% of men and women
reporting less than an eighth grade education (Harlow, 2003). Over 85% of
Hispanics incarcerated in state prisons have not received a high school diploma,
compared to 79% of Black inmates and 77% of White inmates (Harlow, 2003). The
Justice Department also reports an increase of younger inmates that have not
completed high school; Eighty Six percent of the inmates 24 or below had not
received a high school diploma, compared 77% of the inmates 35-44 years old
(Harlow, 2003). The link is clear, education affects crime rates and prison
populations.
Without a doubt, educational attainment also benefits the individual as much
as society. An educated population is the foundation for economic development and
a socially responsible community. Therefore, it is important that individuals receive
3
the best education possible in order to maximize its benefits. According to Bowen
and Bok (1998) and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) a bachelor’s degree is the most
important degree a person can have, due to potential earnings and potential quality of
life. Yet, not all of the students are reaching their maximum educational potential.
Investing in the individual to acquire knowledge and skills has become
known as “Human Capital Investment” (Hornbeck and Salamon, 1991). Human
Capital Investment contributes to the overall economic growth of a state and/or
country: raising the per capita income of the United States 42% after World War II
and 25% when extended to the 1980’s (Hornbeck and Salamon, 1991). Education
and Human Capital is an investment in the economy and a better society.

Background of the Problem
The educational system in the United States has been represented as a
“pipeline” (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2004; Ewell,
Jones, & Kelly, 2003; Achieve, 2008). Students enter at preschool or kindergarten
and exit at high school completion, associate’s degree completion, vocational
certification, or bachelor’s degree completion. This is known as the “P-16 pipeline”,
“P” representing preschool and “16” representing the 16
th
year of schooling or 12
th

grade plus 4, which is a bachelor’s degree.
Current statistics show that for every 100 high school freshman that enters
high school, only 20 make it to bachelor’s degree completion. The National Center
for Higher Education Management Systems published a success rate per 100 ninth
4
graders at each transition point for the class of 2006. According to the National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems (2009) for every 100 high school
students, the average state graduates 69 from high school in four years, of those only
42 immediately enter college, from those only 28 are still enrolled in their college
sophomore year, and 20 graduate on-time. According to the National Center for
Higher Education Management Systems (2009) Hawaii’s statistics are below the
national average; for every 100 Hawaii ninth graders, 68 graduate in four years, of
those only 41 immediately enter college with 24 returning for their second year, and
only 12 graduate on-time.

Figure 1. Comparison of Graduation Percentages

86
60
42
30
69
42
28
20
68
41
24
12
0
20
40
60
80
100
Graduate from High School Immediately Enter College Still Enrolled in Sophomore
Year
Graduate Within 150% of
Time
of 100 Ninth Graders
Best Performing State
National
Hawaii

5
Looking deeper into the problem, students’ aspirations to attend college are
not the problem. According the US Department of Education (2002) 79% of the 10
th

graders surveyed plan to get their bachelor’s degree, up from 41% in 1980 and 60%
in 1990 (73% of Latinos; 76% of African Americans; 81% of Whites; and 90% of
Asians plan to graduate with a bachelor’s degree or higher). Students’ aspirations are
to attend college, but they are falling short or out of the “pipeline” along the way.
They know they need to get a bachelor’s degree or more, but still only a small
percentage is reaching the goal.
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education’s (2004) report
concluded that the success of a states educational pipeline is closely linked to their
educational policies and that multiple policies used in conjunction had the greatest
rates of success. They further surmise that the policies should focus around key
transition points and address: high school graduation; entry into higher education;
persistence in higher education; and completing higher education.

Statement of the Problem
According to Measuring Up 2006: the State Report Card on Higher
Education, which grades states on six performance indicators: preparation;
participation; affordability; completion; benefits; and learning; Hawaii is doing
poorly in preparation, participation, and affordability (National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education, 2006). Regarding preparation, the report states that
eighth graders are under prepared for challenging high school classes-- performing
6
low on national math, science, reading and writing assessments. The percentage of
eighth graders performing proficient in Math in 2006 was 18% proficient, compared
to 38% proficient in the top states; the percentage of eighth graders performing
proficient in reading was 18% compared to 38% in the top states; in science, 15%
compared to 41% in the top states; and 18% in writing, compared to 41% proficient
of the students in the top states (National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, 2006). Clearly, Hawaii’s intermediate students are ill-prepared compared
to the students in the top states. Despite improvement from 1992, Hawaii received a
“C-“ in Preparation.
According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the
only nationwide assessment that measures student skills and progress, Hawaii’s
eighth graders are behind the national average in both reading and math (NAEP
2007, 2009a). In mathematics, only 25% of Hawaii’s eighth graders were performing
proficient in mathematics, with 40% at the basic level, and 35% at the below basic
level; compared to the national average of 29% below basic and Massachusetts,
where only 15% of the students are below basic (NAEP, 2009b). Hawaii’s students
have improved since 1990 where 60% were below basic, but they still have far to go
(NAEP, 2009a).
To further illustrate the problem, according to the 2008 Superintendent’s
report (Hawaii DOE, 2008a), Hawaii has been graduating only about 80% of its
freshmen on time. In the 2006-2007 school year, the DOE reported an 85%
promotion rate of first time ninth graders and an 86% promotion rate for the 2007-
7
2008 school year (Hawaii DOE, 2008a). Cutting down ninth grade retention and
helping students graduate on time is a goal for Hawaii policy makers and it is a key
transition point according to pipeline literature (Ewell, Jones, & Kelly, 2003;
Martinez & Klopett, 2005). Ninth graders who are not retained are more likely to
graduate high school and less likely to drop out. Also, high school students who
graduate on time are more likely to graduate college than those who do not graduate
on time.
Hawaii’s eighth graders are transitioning to high school with proficiency
levels well below what is needed to be successful. To combat the problem of
unprepared eighth graders transitioning to high school, the Hawaii Board of
Education passed Policy 4502 in 2002, as part of its Promotion Policy 4500 Series.
Policy 4502 is titled, “Middle Level Education Promotion Policy” and it states:
The Board of Education recognizes that young adolescence is a critical period
in the development and education of students. If middle level students are to
be adequately prepared for the academic rigor of high school and beyond
they must continue to achieve in the core content areas. Therefore, all
students in grades six, seven and eight shall be required to take language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies. Students must receive a passing
grade and receive an academic unit for each of these core content courses in
order to be promoted to the next grade level. Successful completion shall be
based on academic performance and successful student progress toward
identified benchmarks specified in the Hawaii Content and Performance
Standards.

The goals of the policy are embedded in the policy; Policy 4502 states that in
order for sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students to be promoted, they need to have
a passing grade in the four core subjects of language arts, math, science, and social
studies. (This part of the policy, represented in italics, was an amendment in 2005
8
and it took effect in the 2007-2008 school year. The rest of the policy took effect in
the 2004-2005 school year.) In order to be passing these four core courses, the
students’ promotion should be based on the ability to meet or at least be approaching
proficiency on grade level benchmarks as the policy states, “Successful completion
shall be based on academic performance and successful student progress toward
identified benchmarks specified in the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards,”
(Policy 4502).
This part of the policy makes reference to the Hawaii Content and
Performance Standards of which are now in their third edition. Now known as The
Hawaii Content and Performance Standards III (HCPS III), these standards and
benchmarks were adopted as the state’s curriculum in 2005
(http://165.248.30.40/hcpsv3/index.jsp). The intent of the Hawaii Content and
Performance Standards is to create a standards-based system which is suppose to: (1)
assure equity by holding all students to the same expectations; (2) define the content
and skills that enable quality student performance; and (3) clearly describe what
ALL students should know and be able to do
(http://165.248.30.40/hcpsv3/index.jsp). Standards-based education is to ensure all
students, regardless of race, school, gender, or socio-economic standards, are
meeting the same academic and performance standards.
Therefore, the goals of Policy 4502 are: (1) raise student achievement
through increasing the number and complexity of the courses students take (rigor);
(2) end social promotion (the act of being promoted along with same aged peers
9
regardless of skills and knowledge); (3) help students be prepared for high school
level work and beyond; (4) increase motivation of students by making middle grades
relevant to students.
Clearly, the Board of Education recognizes the importance of middle level
education and its effect on high school completion and post-secondary education.
But, how effective has policy 4502 been implemented?
According to “School Status and Improvement Reports” which report eighth
grade retention rates, of the samples taken (all the middle and intermediate schools in
the largest district), retention rates have roughly stayed the same pre and post policy,
around 2% to 4% (Hawaii DOE 2008b). In some instances, retentions have even
declined.
The policy clearly states that students must be passing the four content areas
in order to be promoted and this is to be based on standards-based grading. But, if
teachers are not adhering to strict standards-based grading and reporting, this may
create grade inflation and allow non-proficient students to be promoted.
Furthermore, when considering retention or promotion of a middle grade student,
according to the regulations, the final decision of whether a student is promoted or
retained is left up to the principal (Hawaii DOE, 2007). This means that if a student
is not passing all four content areas courses, the student may still be promoted to the
next level, if the principal gives the okay.
The purpose of this study is to inform policy makers in the state of Hawaii of
the effectiveness of the implementation of Policy 4502. This study seeks to look at
10
how the Hawaii Department of Education has implemented Policy 4502 and if it is
achieving it goals.

Research Questions
The main questions this study seeks to understand are:
• How is Policy 4502 being implemented at the school level?
• Is it achieving its goals?
To help find the answers to these questions, the following sub-questions will
be addressed:
• Do teachers and administrators know the goals of the policy?
• Do teachers and administrators believe the basic elements of the policy
are the way to achieve these goals?
• Do teachers and administrators implement the policy with fidelity and do
their beliefs help or hinder their implementation of the policy?
• What behaviors are associated with the policy?
• What are barriers to full implementation of the policy?

Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is that it will inform policy makers of the
perceived effects of an important policy meant to positively influence a serious
pipeline issue—academic preparedness and the transition from middle/intermediate
school to high school. This study will shed light on the policy’s perceived strengths
11
and weaknesses from a practitioner’s point of view. It also outlines some suggestions
of potential next steps that might be taken to shape the policy to be more effective
and better implemented.

Limitations of the Study
This study is limited in that it examines only one issue of the pipeline: the
perceived effectiveness of Hawaii’s Board of Education Policy 4502—academic
preparedness and intermediate/middle school promotion. It is also limited in the fact
that it examines only one geographic area in relation to this pipeline issue—the
Island of Oahu in the state of Hawaii. This study is further limited to the perspectives
of the subjects interviewed—teachers and administrators in Hawaii public schools on
the Island of Oahu.

Definition of Terms
Hawaii’s Board of Education: The Board consists of 14 members. Seven of
the members are elected according to geographic region and six are elected at-large.
One non-voting student member also serves on the Board.
Intermediate School: A school with only seventh and eighth grades.
Middle School: A school with sixth, seventh, and eighth grades.
Pipeline: the analogous route a student takes through their educational
journey; students enters at preschool or kindergarten and may exit somewhere along
the way usually at high school graduation or college graduation.
12
Proficiency Level: the ability to perform a grade appropriate criterion based
task usually measured by rubric.
Rubric: a form of measurement used in grading criterion referenced tasks;
usually is broken up into the elements or characteristics of a task and judges these
elements on predetermined criteria and determines the performance in: meets,
exceeds, approaching or well below proficiency.
Social Promotion: the act of promoting students based on age and not on
ability or skills.
13
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive overview of
literature connected to the Hawaii Board of Education’s Middle Level Promotion
Policy, Policy 4502. Since the basic premise of Policy 4502 is that a rigorous
education will be a strong foundation for high school success, the first section of this
literature review will look at the research on rigorous education and its impact.
Second, since this is a study that looks at how a specific promotion policy is being
implemented, this study will review research of how other states and districts have
implemented promotion policies. And finally, since this is a policy implementation
study, we will conduct an overview of policy implementation literature. Specifically,
this review will include the follow three sections:
1. A review of the literature on the role of rigorous curriculum.
2. A review of state and district promotion policies and their
implementation.
3. An overview of policy implementation literature and theory.

The Rational for Policy 4502
Increasing educational capital is essential for the United States for economic
reasons associated with the global competitive economy (Callan el al, 2006; Ewell,
14
Jones, & Kelly, 2003; The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,
2006). Educational reformers and policy makers are interested in increasing and
sustaining educational persistence to credential attainment in order to maintain
America’s competitiveness in the global economy (Callan el al, 2006; The National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2006). The principal objective for
pipeline policy makers is academic preparation that results in credential attainment
so as many Americans as possible are equipped to face the challenges of a globally
competitive economy (Callan et al., 2006; Ewell, Jones, & Kelly, 2003; The National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2006).
According to pipeline policy literature (Ewell, Jones, & Kelly. 2003; The
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2004), there are five
transition points or stages within the pipeline: graduation from high school; entry
into postsecondary education; persistence in postsecondary education; completing
postsecondary education; and entering the workforce.
Creating educational policies to address key transition points proves to be
successful for helping students enter and persist through college to degree
completion. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2004) has
concluded that effective policies increase students’ success rates. More specifically,
effective policies can increase the number of students successfully progressing from
ninth grade to high school graduation (The National Center for Public Policy and
Higher Education, 2004).
15
The intent of the Hawaii Board of Education’s (HBOE) Middle Level
Promotion Policy, Policy 4502, is to raise student achievement and increase student
motivation, so students are better prepared to face the challenges of high school level
work and cut down on grade retention. In the 2006-2007 school year, the Hawaii
Department of Education (HDOE) reported an 85% promotion rate of first time ninth
graders and an 86% promotion rate for the 2007-2008 school year (Hawaii DOE,
2008a). Hawaii has been consistently graduating only about 80% of its freshmen on
time. These are both foci of pipeline policy (Ewell, Jones, & Kelly, 2003; Martinez
and Klopett, 2005). Ninth graders who are not retained are more likely to graduate
high school and less likely to drop out. Also, high school students who graduate on
time are more likely to graduate college than those who do not graduate on time.

Policy 4502 and its Connection to Rigorous Curriculum
Beginning with A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983) there has been a call for schools in the US to raise their graduation
requirements. The premise behind this call was that increasing course loads would
lead to increasing expectation and thus improve student outcomes. The
recommended core curriculum for high schools became: 4 English classes, 3 math, 3
science, and 3 social studies. This is referred to as the “core curriculum” (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).
Success in high school is helped by a rigorous middle school program
(Juvonen et al., 2004; Wimberly and Noeth, 2005). The academic decline in middle
16
school is a problem that beleaguers middle schools (Juvonen et al., 2004; Barone,
Aguirre-Deandreis, & Trickett 1991). School reform models are addressing this
perplexing problem with a focus on academic achievement and academic outcomes
(Juvonen et al., 2004; Jackson et al., 2000). Policy 4502 is meant to assist this
academic decline and ensure students are motivated, academically challenged and
prepared for high school level work and teachers are not passing students who are
not ready for high school level work.

Rigorous Education
Rigor Defined
A rigorous curriculum has been strongly correlated with college completion
(Adelman, 1999, 2006; ACT, 2005; ACT, 2004; Warburton, Burgarin, & Nunez,
2001). Moreover, rigorous curriculum has been more of a predictor of whether or not
someone will complete college than race or ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic
status (Adelman, 2006; Alexander and Pallas 1984; Natriello, Pallas, & Alexander,
1989; ACT, 2005; ACT, 2004; Warburton, Burgarin, & Nunez, 2001; Martinez and
Klopett, 2005; Kirst and Venezia, 2004). However, there has been no agreement on
the definition of rigorous curriculum. To some, increasing academic rigor is
increasing the number of required course (Warburton, Bugarin, & Nunez, 2001). For
others, rigor is about the types of courses: a combination of courses such as college
preparatory versus vocational also known as “track” classes (Alexander and Pallas,
1984) or a mixture of math, science, music, literature, and language classes (Heck,
17
Price, & Thomas, 2004; Horn and Kojaku, 2001). And for others, merely increasing
the number of courses or type of courses is not enough: rigor is the quality and
intensity (difficulty) of the actual courses that matter which could be specific higher
level courses such as physics and precalculus (Adelman 1999, 2006; Teitelbaum,
2003).
The HBOE’s promotion policy is built around these multiple definitions of
rigorous education. As stated earlier, the promotion policy is stated in the HBOE
policy series 4500. Policy 4500 gives a general statement regarding the overall
HBOE promotion policy. It states, “The Department shall provide for successful
student progress by offering educational experiences of increasing difficulty and
complexity” (Policy 4500). While, the specific middle grade promotion policy calls
for a specific number of course:
The Board of Education recognizes that young adolescence is a critical period
in the development and education of students. If middle level students are to
be adequately prepared for the academic rigor of high school and beyond
they must continue to achieve in the core content areas. Therefore, all
students in grades six, seven and eight shall be required to take language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies. Students must receive a passing
grade and receive an academic unit for each of these core content courses in
order to be promoted to the next grade level (Policy 4502).

The call for passing grades in the four content courses is a change from the
former policy. The former middle grade policy only required passing grades in
language arts and math; the new policy calls for two additional content areas of
social studies and science.
18
Since, Hawaii’s Middle Grade Promotion Policy is built around the premise
that rigorous curriculum is important, it then becomes important to look at what the
literature says on this topic.

Rigor as the Number of Courses
The first definition associated with rigorous course work, is increasing the
number of courses or core courses such as English, math, social studies, and/or
science. Girotto and Peterson (1999) found that students that increased the number of
English, science and social studies courses did better on standardized tests. ACT
(2004) found that students who took the “core curriculum” had higher scores on the
ACT college entrance exam than those who did not. Moreover, when students
combined the “core curriculum” with speech, additional social studies courses, and
Algebra II, they did better than those who took the minimum core.
In order to increase college readiness, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) has
been aligning graduation requirements and college admissions requirements. They
have done so by increasing the number of honors course, Advanced Placement (AP),
and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses (Roderick, Nagaoka, & Allensworth,
2006). Roderick, Nagaoka, & Allensworth (2006) report that high school selection of
rigorous courses does make a difference in probability of attending a selective or
very selective four-year college; it also affects the readiness of students when they
get to college, helping curve the probability of them not getting stuck taking
remedial courses, which is the goal. But Roderick, Nagaoka, & Allensworth, (2006)
19
found taking courses beyond the core curriculum does not raise the probability of
attending college, it does, however, impact the ability to attend a selective or more
selective university, and it affects college persistence. Students who take courses
beyond the core curriculum are more persistent.
In sum, there is some evidence that increasing the number of courses may
raise student academic outcomes as shown by increased scores on standardized tests.
Also, increasing the number of college preparatory courses can increase college
persistence and graduation. It then becomes important to look at the different
combinations of courses and their effects on student outcomes related to college
persistence and graduation.

Rigor as a Combination of Courses
In one of the landmark studies that sought to determine the impact of rigorous
curriculum, Alexander and Pallas (1984), used regression analysis with Educational
Testing Service’s Study of Academic Prediction and Growth. This data set included
data survey and test information on students in 17 different communities from 1961-
1969. Alexander and Pallas (1984) concluded that academic background is far more
important than gender, race/ethnicity, family composition, and socioeconomic status
in relation to test performance, entering higher education, and degree completion.
Alexander and Pallas (1984) looked at what classes the students took, not necessarily
what was taught in those classes, finding that the number of college preparatory
classes (versus non college prep) had significant impact on student learning. They
20
found that students taking the college track had higher scores than students who did
not. These conclusions were also supported with additional studies (Natriello, Pallas,
& Alexander, 1989; Alexander, Holupka, and Pallas, 1987).
Comparing the impact of three different high school class combinations,
Horn and Kojaku (2001) found that increasing the amount of rigorous courses
increased student persistence in college. Horn and Kojaku (2001) compared the
“Core Curriculum” (4 English, 3 math, 3 social studies and 3 science course) to what
the study called “Middle Level Curriculum” (p.24) which was made up of: core
curriculum, plus 1 year of foreign language, 2 of the 3 math classes had to include
Algebra I and geometry, and the science courses had to include any 2 of biology,
chemistry, and physics. These two combinations were then juxtaposed with a third
combination known as “Rigorous Curriculum” (p.24). This “Rigorous Curriculum”
consisted of 4 years of English, 3 years of foreign language, 4 years of math
(precalculus or higher), 3 years of science (including, biology, chemistry, and
physics), 3 years of social studies, and at least 1 honors or advanced placement (AP)
course. After controlling for socioeconomic background, college admission exam
scores, the type of college students first attended, how well they did in their first
year, and other variables, Horn and Kojaku (2001) found that the more “rigorous”
the high school curriculum the better the student outcomes were for persistence and
bachelor’s degree completion.
Heck, Price, and Thomas (2004) did a quantitative case study of a 9-12
th

grade high school in Hawaii where students self choose their courses. Tracking a
21
cohort of ninth graders with a sample size of about 400 students, seven course
combinations surfaced. Heck, Price, and Thomas (2004) found that students in
honors and more challenging academic tracks and band had a higher likely hood of
attending a four year college; while students who took lesser challenging courses
with Hawaiian language were more likely to be headed to a 2 year college. The high
academic courses with band would be considered higher in difficulty and quality as
the lower academic classes. It is possible that Hawaiian language and band with
these combinations are more associated with socioeconomic and ethnic status, than
the other courses, due to the fact that the study reports that Hawaiians were less
likely to be in the higher academic tracks (Heck, Price, and Thomas, 2004). As other
studies have found (Horn and Kojaku, 2001; Alexander and Pallas, 1984), when
controlling for variables such as socioeconomic background, more rigorous
combinations of courses have increased student outcomes associated with persistence
and degree completion.
In sum, combinations of courses can positively impact student outcomes of
college persistence and bachelor’s degree completion. When controlling for variables
such as socioeconomic status, these studies show that students who had a more
rigorous the combination classes did better than those who did not (Horn and
Kojaku, 2001; Alexander and Pallas, 1984).

22
Rigor as Quality and Intensity
In Answers in the Toolbox, Adelman (1999) used the High School and
Beyond/Sophomore cohort longitudinal data (HS&B/So). The HS&B/So data
followed a national sample of 10
th
graders from 1980-1992 in surveys and through
postsecondary transcripts in September 1993. Students were 29 and 30 at the
completion of September 1993. In The Toolbox Revisited, Adelman (2006) used data
from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (referred to as the
NELS:88/2000 or NELS) which followed a sample of 12,000 students from eighth
grade, 1988, until December 2000, where the students were 26 or 27 years old. In
both of his studies, Adelman found that the number one predicator or determinant for
bachelor’s degree completion was a rigorous high school curriculum.
Adelman defined rigor as “academic intensity” (Adelman, 1999, 2006) and
measured rigor by determining the quality or “curriculum configuration, academic
performance and assessed general learned abilities” (Adelman, 2006). Using
regression analysis, Adelman found mathematics education and rigor had more of an
impact on bachelor’s degree completion than did any other subject matter.
Specifically, those students who went beyond Algebra II were significantly more
likely to graduate than students who did not go beyond Algebra II. Adelman (1999,
2006) found that minority and low socioeconomic students who had a rigorous high
school curriculum were just as likely to graduate as their white counter parts
(Adelman, 1999, 2006).
23
In The Toolbox Revisited (2006), Adelman concludes that “credit
momentum” is an extremely important factor in four year degree completion rates. If
a student can get to 20 credits in their first calendar year, then the student has a
significantly higher chance of graduating within six years, than if the student was
unable to. Curriculum rigor plays an important role in credit momentum, because
credit momentum in college is directly affected by the amount of remedial courses a
first year student has to take (Adelman, 2006). First year college students get
“bogged down” taking remedial courses which have no credit values toward
graduation, therefore, making the first college year useless toward graduation.
Adelman (2006) concludes that students who take more rigorous coursework,
especially math, since that is the subject the majority of the students end up taking
remedial courses in, will be more likely to persist towards graduation. He also found
that earning six college credits in high school strongly increased a student’s
probability of reaching bachelor’s degree completion.
For Adelman, rigorous curriculum was associated with the intensity of the
subject matter, but ACT found that the teacher, not just the rigor of the subject
matter, influences rigor. In trying to determine why certain students performed well
on the ACT, the most widely used college entrance exam that is also curriculum
based, the ACT (2005) did a qualitative study examining 10 high schools with
significant numbers of minority and low-socioeconomic students, who also scored
successful on the English, mathematics, and science ACT assessments. The
researchers looked at English, math and science courses and teachers of students who
24
were successful on the ACT. Surveys, classroom observations, and interviews were
conducted with teachers from the ten schools whose students did well on the ACT. In
addition, instructional materials and class syllabi were analyzed to “determine the
sophistication of the content” and assessments (ACT, 2005, p.10). The study found
that the course work was text book driven and used as a basis for homework,
quizzes, and as a general reference (ACT, 2005). The study also revealed that the
teacher had a major impact on the rigor of the course. Having a qualified,
experienced, flexible and responsive teacher who new the content and who could
also instructionally respond to the needs of the students, while also keeping them on
task was significant to the rigor of the class (ACT, 2005). These finding reveal that it
is not just the content that makes a course rigorous, but it is the also quality of
instruction.
ACT’s (2005) findings were also in line with Teitelbaum’s (2003) findings.
Trying to determine if increasing graduate requirements to 3 years of math and 3
years of science actually made a difference in academic gains over students who took
less math, Teitelbaum (2003) found that simply increasing the number of credits was
not enough; it was the content and the quality of instruction that mattered too.
Conducting a regression study using National Educational Longitudinal Study
(NELS) 1988 student test score data, Teitelbaum (2003) found that when controlling
for race, socioeconomic status, etc, outcomes were similar on NELS standardized
tests from eighth to 12
th
grade for students who took 3 years of math and science and
those who took less. Teitelbaum (2003) makes the case that teachers may have
25
diluted the curriculum for the lower performing students or the third math and
science classes were more of a repeat of curriculum than an advanced class.
In sum, research and researchers have not come to a common definition of
rigorous coursework. Nonetheless, rigorous high school coursework, which includes
increasing the number of core curriculum classes, certain class combinations and
specific content courses such as Algebra II and Precalculus, and courses that are rich
in quality and intensity, has strong, positive impact on student outcomes and long
term success. Policy 4502 calls for students to be provided with a rigorous
curriculum and to pass the four content areas of language arts, math, science and
social studies, in order to be promoted to the next grade level. However, although the
number of courses can be specified at the state policy level, the quality and intensity
of the content is determined at the school level. And, it may be that the quality of
instruction is what helps prepare students, not just increasing the number of course.
The next section of this literature review will look at how certain districts have faired
in implementing promotion policies.

Promotion Policies
Generally, there are two basic terms used when talking about students
moving on to the next grade: promotion and retention. Promotion is defined as
students being moved from grade to grade (Holmes, 1989; Jackson, 1975). The two
types of promotion are social promotion: the act of being promoted to the next grade
based on age rather than knowledge and skills; and non-social promotion: the act of
26
being promoted to the next grade based on performance and skill attainment (US
Department of Education, 1999). Retention is defined as holding a student back or
not passing them on to the next level (Holmes, 1989). There has been a long debate
among researchers regarding promotion and retention. This next section will
examine the literature connected to promotion and retention; namely studies
regarding the effects of retention and the literature connected to social promotion and
non-social promotion.

Historical Research on Promotion/Retention
There has been a long history of research regarding the effects of promotion
and retention (Holmes, 1989; Jackson, 1975, Niklason, 1984, 1987; Rose, Medway,
Cantrell, & Marus, 1983; Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1994; Jimerson, Calrson,
Rotert, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1997). Jackson (1975), the first comprehensive overview
on retention and promotion, systematically analyzed 30 different promotion and
retention studies that were published between 1911 and 1973. In this analysis,
Jackson (1975) concluded that there was no significant evidence that suggests
retention was “more beneficial” for low performing students than promotion
(p. 627).
In 1984, Holmes and Matthews performed a meta-analysis of 44 studies
published between 1929 and 1984. In this meta-analysis, they found that promoted
students outperformed retained students in all of the comparison areas such as
academic performance, behavior, self-concept, attitude, attendance, and study skills.
27
In 1989, Holmes conducted another meta-analysis which is one of the most cited
studies on the topic of retention and promotion. Holmes’ (1989) study analyzed 19
additional studies that were published between 1925 and 1989. (These 19 studies
were added to the 44 studies previously analyzed in the Holmes and Matthews
(1984) meta-analysis for a total of 63 studies for the 1989 meta-analysis.) Holmes
(1989) concluded that any benefits that were accrued to low performing students
from being retained were lost after 3 years and that there were greater negative long
term effects on students including high drop out rates.
Some argued that retention in lower grades is less harmful than retention in
higher grades (Smith and Shepard, 1987). Roderick (1994) found that when
controlling for family background and post-retention grades, that students who were
retained in lower grades (K-3) had 75% chance of dropping out, while students who
were retained in higher grades (4-6), had a 90% chance of dropping out. Roderick
(1994) further found that students who were over age after sixth grade either dropped
out or had poor attendance in middle grades and went on to high school displaying
poor attendance patterns. Likewise, Karweit (1999) following 10,000 students in a
first grade cohort and found that students who were retained made gains, but by the
end of their second year, the gains had been lost. Alexander, Entwisle, and Dauber
(1994) found that retention had some positive effects on students who were retained
in later grades, but they found that students who were retained in lower grades never
caught up to those students who had not been retained.
28
Alexander, Entwisle, and Horsey (1997) studied the relationship between
retention and dropouts. They examined four explanatory variables for dropouts:
background characteristics such as race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family type
(one or two parent, etc); family context factors such as parental attitudes and parent
practices; children’s personal resources such as attitudes toward self and school, and
engagement behaviors; and finally, school experiences such as academic patterns and
tracking. The results of the study indicated that children who struggle in school with
lower than standard academic skills, put into remedial classes, including special
education, are over age for their grade level, and have problematic behaviors are
more likely to drop out; however, the study notes that dropping out is a life process,
that the other factors such as being a male from a large family, with one parent, often
a young parent, who is from a low socioeconomic background are also factors that
can account for dropping out.
In 2001, Jimerson conducted a meta-analysis of 20 studies published between
1990 and 1999. In this meta-analysis, Jimerson (2001) also concluded that though
there may be some short term gains for students who are retained (that is if they
received systematic remedial instruction as recommended by Alexander, Enwisle,
and Dauber, 1994), they are lost after the first or second year. And, like Holmes
(1989) Jimerson (2001) found that there are longer negative effects associated with
retention and with promotion.
Perhaps due to the research literature showing the negative effects of teacher
initiated retention (Holmes, 1989; Holmes and Matthews, 1984; Jackson, 1975;
29
Jimerson 2001; Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997; Roderick, 1994), “social
promotion” has became a common practice among schools; in other words, students
are passed on to the next grade, even though their academic work does not support
that promotion. Furthermore, a large number teachers and administrators believe
passing students based on their long-term self-esteem and social adjustment is more
important than retaining students to improve their academic achievement.

The Move Away from Social Promotion
Beginning in the 1990’s, there has been a movement to end social promotion.
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) conducted a study in 1997 in which
they surveyed 85 of the 820 largest school districts regarding their promotion
policies. The study found that many of the districts surveyed thought retention was a
last resort and that there were no programs to prevent or intervene for failing
students. Many teachers reported passing students that were not prepared to move to
the next grade. AFT (1997) recommended that because neither retention nor social
promotion are effective, schools and districts need to provide more safety nets for
failing students such as smaller class sizes, rigorous standards based education (with
assessments and curriculum to support this), timely interventions for failing students,
high quality teachers in every classroom (all of whom can teach reading), and learn
from districts and schools that are successfully implementing promotion policies.
In 1998, President Clinton, in a memorandum to the secretary of education,
called for an end to social promotion (US Department of Education 1999). Clinton
30
further called for students to be passed based on their ability to perform certain tasks
such as their ability to read. The US Department of Education (1999) followed up
with a Guide for Educators and State and Local Leaders: Taking Responsibility for
Ending Social Promotion. This guide recommended clear standards and objectives,
quality curriculum and instruction, summer school programs for at-risk students,
extended learning times, smaller class sizes, looping, transition programs for students
who are retained, hold schools accountable by reporting school performance,
rewarding good schools, and intervening in failing schools (US Department of
Education, 1999). Citing a published survey, 63% of employers, 32% of parents, and
26% of teachers believed a high school diploma did not guarantee students mastered
basic skills (Riley, Smith, and Peterson, 1999).
In 2006, at the request of the New York City Public School System, the
RAND Corporation (Marsh, Barney, Kirby, & Xia, 2006) examined the design and
implementation of policies aimed at ending social promotion. Marsh et al. (2006)
reviewed 12 districts at the state and local level and conducted interviews to
determine successes, challenges, and failures. The policies reviewed were six state
level policies: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Texas;
and six district level or city level policies: Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Long Beach,
Milwaukee, and Philadelphia. The states in this sample targeted grades 3, 5, and 8 as
promotion gates. Grades 5 and 8 are the transition grades (transition from elementary
to middle and middle to high) with third grade being the first grade students are
required to take NCLB mandated standardized tests. The district or city policies were
31
broader in their target grades. Six of the states made promotion decisions solely
based on performance on standardized tests; the other district and states had other
indicators which might include performance on standardized tests as part of the
decision. Some districts limit the amount of times a student can be retained. For
example, Chicago students are limited to being retained only once in each of the
grade level spans. All of the districts provide interventions for students identified as
at-risk for retention such as summer school, tutoring, and extended school day with
summer school being the most required intervention.
Marsh et al. (2006) did find some problems with implementation, partly
resulting from the bias against retention among educators. Some administrators and
teachers held beliefs that were different from the policy, and these beliefs kept the
promotion and retention policies from being fully implemented (p.29). Grade
inflation was also a problem in retention and promotion policies. Students would be
getting A’s and B’s, but score very low on standardized tests. Marsh et al. (2006)
reported this as grade inflation and misaligned teaching (teachers were not teaching
to the standards). Also, the appeal process allowed educators and parents a loophole
for retaining students. For example, in North Carolina the principal makes the final
decision of grade placement. After, the child fails to pass a standardized test and a
review committee considers the situation, the principal makes the final decision (this
is much like Policy 4502).
In sum, from the President of the United States to businesses, parents, and
teachers, there has been a movement to end social promotion. The US Department of
32
Education (1999) defined social promotion as “the 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”
(p. 5). Many school districts have created policies focused on ending social
promotion. Some of the most notable district and/or state policies are Chicago Public
Schools, New York City Schools, Florida, and Texas. Studies examining the effects
of these policies are currently underway.

Research on District Policies to End Social Promotion
Chicago Public Schools’ (CPS) promotion policy is one of the most studied
promotion policies. In the 1995-1996 school year, the CPS initiated a policy to “end
social promotion” by requiring students to meet a minimum score on the Iowa Tests
of Basic Skills (Allensworth, 2004; Roderick and Nagaoka, 2005; Nagaoka and
Roderick, 2004). Students who did not pass the initial test in the gate-keeping grades
of three, six and eight were put into summer bridge programs and after school
programs called Lighthouse (Jacob, Stone, & Roderick, 2004). Students were given
one more chance to pass the test at the end of summer. If they passed they moved on;
if they did not pass they were either retained or sent to transition centers later
renamed Academic Preparatory Centers (APC). Transition APCs, where for students
over age for their grade (Jacob, Stone, and Roderick, 2004).
The first year of implementation, 1,800 eighth graders were retained, the
following year 3,000 students repeated eighth grade or went to a transition center,
33
followed by 3,900 students the following year, and 3,300 in the fall of 1999
(Allensworth, 2004). CPS already had a 43% dropout rate by age 19. Using
standardized test scores to determine retention or promotion has some advantages; it
takes the pressure off the teacher whether to pass the student or not; it puts pressure
on the student to work hard; and it identifies those students who need additional and
remedial instruction (Allensworth, 2004; Nagaoka and Roderick, 2004; Roderick,
Engel, Nagaoka, 2003; Jacob, Stone, and Roderick, 2004). However, it also has
disadvantages by placing a lot of emphasis on high-stakes testing, creating a
significant number of retained students and giving incentives for teachers to teach to
the test (Allensworth, 2004; Nagaoka and Roderick, 2004; Roderick, Engel, &
Nagaoka, 2003; Jacob, Stone, & Roderick, 2004). Studies also conclude that overall
dropout rates did not increase with the policy; although students dropped out in
earlier grades due to being retained and about the same number of students dropped
out by age 17. Students who were old for their age, by eighth grade were moved into
transition centers, which were locations set up to remediate students away from
regular schools (Allensworth, 2004; Nagaoka and Roderick, 2004).
In analyzing the effects of the CPS promotion policy, Allensworth (2004)
followed seven cohorts of students from 1992-1998. Three of the cohorts were pre-
policy and four were post-policy. She followed the first five cohorts for four years
until the age of 17 and the last two cohorts until the age of 19. Students were
grouped by age instead of grade due to the possibility of retention.
34
Allensworth (2004) found that student achievement improved significantly as
measured by standardized tests, but dropout rates stayed about the same. The eighth-
grade promotion gate for CPS did not raise dropout rates, but it did not reduce them
either; it simply changed the demographics of those who did dropout. Allensworth
(2004) found that retention had consequences on lower performing students; lower
achieving students dropped out at higher percentages post-policy than pre-policy.
Racial gaps increased too. Allensworth (2004) points out that though student test
scores did rise, some might argue that student achievement did not, only the ability
to take a standardized test. Overall, Allensworth (2004) states the eighth grade
promotion policy did not decrease dropout rates.
Retention rates soared the first year, from 2% retention to 8.3%, then to
11.1%, but then went to 9.3%. One possible explanation for the decrease in retained
students could be increased student achievement, but Allensworth (2004) points out
that another explanation could be that a larger number of students were eventually
placed in special education (Allensworth, 2004; Nagaoka and Roderick, 2004). Other
variables Allensworth (2004) considered limitations were shifts in student
demographics serviced by CPS, economic improvements in Chicago itself, and a
number new high schools that opened near the end of the study.
Roderick and Nagaoka (2005) looked at whether or not retention helped
increase achievement in third and sixth graders. They found that it did not. There
were no data to show that retention helped third graders two years after retention and
that those retained in sixth grade showed a decline in test scores relative to their
35
promoted peers. The policy also increased the number of special education students,
because special education students were exempted from the policy. One possible
flaw for CPS is that the students who failed would be taught at the same school for
the second year by the same teachers, unless they were already too old for their
school age; if they were too old, they would be transitioned to alternative learning
sights for remediation (Allensworth, 2004; Roderick and Nagaoka, 2005). These
same results were published in Nagaoka and Roderick (2004).
Looking at almost identical data, Jacob and Lefgren (2004) found that third
graders showed some short term gains from being retained. The students who were
retained in the third grade benefited slightly from the increased academic supports
such as an extra academic year and summer school. Jacob and Lefgren (2004) also
found that sixth grade students who were retained showed no short term academic
gains. In 2009, Jacob and Lefgren published a revised study to look at the long term
effects of retention. Jacob and Lefgren (2009) found that retention in the sixth grade
does not negatively effect high school completion; sixth grade students retained had
a chance to catch up to their peers. However, regarding eighth grade retention and
promotion, retaining eighth grade students did have a negative impact on high school
completion, but those eighth graders who received an intervention of transferring to a
transition center did not show increased likelihood of dropping out (Jacob and
Lefgren, 2009).
Jacob, Stone, and Roderick (2004) reported on responses of teachers and
administrators regarding the promotion policy. Since 1994 the Consortium on
36
Chicago School Research conducted biannual research in forms of surveys of
teachers and principals from grades six through ten. Teachers and principals report
how much time they spend on content covered in reading and math as well as test
preparation (Jacob, Stone, and Roderick, 2004). In 1999 and 2001 the Consortium
included supplemental questions regarding CPS efforts to end social promotion:
teachers and principals were asked to assess the impact of the policy on student
learning and behavior, teacher behavior and practices, and parent attitudes and
involvement.
Jacob, Stone, and Roderick (2004) found that teachers believed the second
chance offered by the summer bridge and after school programs were essential.
Teachers and principals reported that the policy had positive influence on student
motivation and increased parent participation. The policy also influenced teacher
behaviors. Teachers spent more time teaching toward mastery and taught more basic
reading and math skills. Teachers also reported teaching more test preparation and
less time on other subjects such as social studies and science. Seventy-five percent of
teachers felt that retention improved a student’s long-term chances of being
successful in school (Jacob, Stone, and Roderick, 2004). However, teachers reported
that it did have a more immediate negative impact, with 48% of teachers agreeing
that retention hurts students’ self-esteem. Teachers reported that not enough is being
done to help the lowest performing students. Overall, according to Jacob, Stone, and
Roderick (2004), teachers and principals reported a positive feeling toward CPS’s
efforts to end social promotion, but many felt there was room for improvement.
37
Older and more experienced teachers were more positive regarding the policy, while
younger and more educated teachers viewed the policy more negatively (Jacob,
Stone, & Roderick, 2004).
In sum, the research surrounding the CPS promotion policy shows mixed
results on the effects of retention of third, sixth and eighth graders. Retention and
interventions in CPS did raise student achievement or at least performance on
standardized tests, but it did not reduce their dropout rates, it only changed who
dropped out. CPS has begun to address the problems with their promotion policy.
For example, some of the transition centers have moved to high school campuses, so
students can earn credit for graduation (Allensworth, 2004). Furthermore, CPS has
reevaluated their promotion policy and they no longer place such a strong emphasis
on standardized test scores; the scores are now only a part of the overall
consideration of promotion or retention.

Florida’s Promotion Policy
Florida’s promotion policy calls for all third graders to demonstrate basic
skills in reading before being promoted to the fourth grade. Basic skills are
demonstrated by scoring at level 2 or above on the Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test (FCAT). Greene and Winters (2004) found that students who were
retained made more positive gains than those who were not. They followed a cohort
of students who should have been retained, but were promoted because the policy
was not in effect. This group was compared with the next year’s cohort of students
38
who were affected by the policy. Comparing the students who were retained with the
students who were not retained, Greene and Winters found that the students who
were retained made more progress than those who were socially promoted.
There are problems with this finding. First, as Holmes (1989) points out in
his meta-analysis, students do show gains in the first 3 years after retention, but these
are lost with more significant long term effects such as high drop out rates. Greene
and Winters (2004) study does not track students over a long period of time to see of
these gains are long term gains. Second, there are other variables such as quality of
teacher for the students who were socially promoted and retained that were cannot be
controlled for.
In 2007, Greene and Winters published an additional study, “Revisiting
Grade Retention: An Evaluation of Florida’s Test Based Promotion Policy.” In this
particular study, they compare the same cohorts of students, but then follow and
compare them an additional year, so 2 years after retention. The results of this study
show that retained students outperformed promoted students in both years. Again,
there are limitations to Greene and Winters’ (2007) study. The control and treatment
groups differ in their descriptive statistics and the cohorts entered third grade at
different years with different circumstances and different teachers.

New York City’s Promotion Policy
In 2003, the New York City Public Schools (NYCPS) instituted a promotion
and retention policy for third graders. In 2004 the policy was extended to fifth
39
graders; in 2005, it was extended to seventh graders; and finally in 2008, the policy
was extended to eighth graders. According to the NYCPS’s promotion policy,
students in gate keeping grades of three, five, seven, and eight have to score at least a
Level 2 on the statewide assessment in English/language arts and mathematics. A
level 2 score is defined as “meets some of the standards or partially meets the
standards” (McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano, 2009, p. xxi). (This could be compared to
approaching proficiency as defined in Hawaii’s State Assessment). Students who
score below Level 2 may be promoted by appealing and presenting a portfolio of
work that demonstrates a specific level of proficiency.
The main emphasis of NYCPS’s policy is early identification of struggling
students, interventions, and progress monitoring. According to the New York City
promotion policy, students who are at-risk of being retained, by scoring a level 1
(shows serious academic difficulties) or level 2 (meets some of the standards or
partially meets the standards) on the previous years assessment are to receive in
school supports such as small group instruction, tutoring, and differentiated
instruction, as well as out of school supports. The out of school supports are after
school tutoring, Saturday schools also known as Saturday Predatory Academies
(SPA), and if they fail to pass the spring assessment (scoring at the level 1) in the
gateway year, they are placed in a mandatory summer school; At the end of summer
school, they take the summer assessment. If they score Level 2 on the summer
assessment, they move forward. If they score below level 2, then they are retained,
unless they can present a portfolio that demonstrates Level 2 work (McCombs,
40
Kirby, & Mariano 2009). For example, students who perform at Level 1 or 2 in
fourth grade will be required to have interventions during their fifth grade year. If
students perform below Level 2 at the end of their fifth grade year, they will be in
summer school and take the summer assessment. If they score below Level 2 on the
summer assessment, they will be retained unless they pass the appeal process.
The RAND Corporation (McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano 2009) was contracted
by the NYCPS to conduct a longitudinal study on the effects of the new promotion
policy. McCombs, Kirby, and Mariano (2009) tracked fifth grade cohorts, one pre-
policy and three policy cohorts. Over time, proficiency levels raised for at-risk
students in grades five, six, and seven, while the numbers of students scoring a Level
1 on the state assessment declined. Important to note, students who were retained
performed better than students who were promoted (when comparing cohorts). And
moreover, students who were promoted on appeal were outperformed by retained
students.
McCombs, Kirby, and Mariano (2009) did find a disproportionate number of
African American and Latino students being retained. However, when comparing
attitudes of retained, at-risk promoted, and non-at-risk students, they found that the
both retained and at-risk promoted students stated less confident attitudes toward
mathematics after the retention/promotion decision. But, by the third year, the
retained and non-at-risk students displayed no gaps in attitudes about math, while,
the at-risk promoted continued to display less confident attitudes. With regard to
reading skills, the gaps closed quicker for all three groups with no significant
41
differences between any of the three groups. Overall, the study found student
improvements from early identification, interventions, and summer schools. There
were even stronger positive results on proficiency levels for retained students. And,
the study found no social problems for retained students.
In summary, NYCPS’s policy focuses on identifying at-risk students early,
providing them with interventions, and using retention as a last resort. Furthermore,
additional benefits come from long interventions throughout the year and progress
monitoring. Retained students show more benefits with regards to math performance
more than reading performance.

Texas Promotion Policy
From the 1980’s to present, Texas has had few different merit based
promotion policies of varying stringency. Texas’ current promotion policy was
established in 1999 when George W. Bush was governor. This policy established
promotion gates at third, fifth, and eighth grades and required students at these
grades to pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) before being
promoted to the next grade. Districts must also provide accelerated programs to low
performing students and districts also must have grade placement committees for
students who have failed the TAKS twice.
Bali, Anagnostopoulos, and Roberts, (2005) found that African American and
Hispanics were retained in disproportionate numbers. Districts with higher revenues
retained higher percentages of students (the researchers state that these districts can
42
afford the costs associated with retained students) and lager urban districts with
greater numbers of poor and minority students also held back higher percentages of
students, while districts with higher averages of academic achievement retained a
lower proportion of students. In sum, Bali, Anagnostopoulos, and Roberts, (2005)
found that student characteristics, school leadership, district organizational features,
and local politics were all variables connected to student retention in Texas.
Lorence, Dworkin, Toenjes, and Hill (2002) found that retaining low
performing third graders for an additional year was not “harmful” to their academic
performance in later years (p.43). Following students from 1994 through 1999 and
using the older Texas promotion policy that stated third graders must score a 70 or
above on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) the precursor to the
TAKS, Lorence et al. (2002) analyzed students who were socially promoted even
though they scored below 70 and those who were required to repeat third grade due
to scoring below 70 (the older promotion policy allowed students to be promoted to
the fourth grade if the principal or specialist, classroom teacher, and parents agreed).
Lorence et al. (2002) further found that unlike previous studies, the learning
achievements gained in the year of retention did not dissipate after several years.
However, they also found that many of the socially promoted students did also
eventually pass the TAAS in subsequent years after third grade.
Lorence et al. (2002) admit their study has certain limitations. First, they do
not know the social and emotional effects of the retention. Furthermore, they do not
follow the students into high school which is usually when retained students dropout.
43
Additionally, the socially promoted students and the retained students received about
the same remedial services and this may be why both sets of students (retained and
socially promoted) eventually passed the TAAS. This suggests that it is not the
retention that was effective, but the remediation. Furthermore, they are only looking
at the effects of retention on third graders and the negative effects researchers
associate with retention are usually those students who were retained in later years.
Lorence and Dworkin (2006) followed retained and socially promoted
students into their sophomore year. They again found that retention improved the
reading scores of retained students. They further found that retention was more
beneficial to Hispanic and African American students then social promotion as far as
reading scores were concerned. And, finally, they claim that there were no harmful
effects on students academic performance associated with retention. There are
limitations to their study. First, they are limiting their study to TAAS data; they are
not looking at the social and emotional effects of retention on students. Moreover,
they are looking at the effects of retention on third graders, not students in other
grades. And, finally they are not following students all the way to graduation.
Retained and socially promoted students may dropout before their senior year.
In summary, Texas’ aim at ending in social promotion has ended in mixed
results, though most of the studies have shown some positive results for retaining
third graders who have not performed at adequate levels. Future research is needed
to determine the long term effects on retained students beyond their sophomore year.

44
Promotion Policy Literature Summary
In conclusion, all three policies in this literature review were based on
students passing or not passing a standardized test. But, when teachers and/or
administrators are involved in making retention decisions, they seem to favor
socially promoting students. Perhaps this is why Chicago, Florida, New York City,
and Texas have incorporated the use of promotion based on standardized tests.
However, even when faced with test based promotion/retention, the overall findings
of these policies to end social promotion show mixed results. It is clear, that
retention in early grades may raise standardized tests if interventions are involved
during the retained year, but the long term effects associated with retention may
negate these gains in the subsequent years. Promotion policies aimed at ending social
promotion are hard to implement unless they are clearly defined, systematic, and
backed by teacher, administrator, and parent beliefs. Furthermore, it seems that
interventions that focus on remediation and improved instruction must accompany
efforts aimed at curbing social promotion.

Policy Implementation Literature
History of Policy Implementation and its Literature
The findings on the challenges of implementing student promotion policies
are quite consistent with a broader literature in education research on policy
implementation literature. According to Honig (2006), policy implementation
research in the United States began in the 1960s. These pioneering studies focused
45
on implementation of the Great Society policies, like the Elementary and Secondary
Education act of 1965. Research showed that these policies were failing to make
significant changes in student outcomes due to conflicts between policy makers’ and
implementers’ interest, lack of capacity, and desire to carry out the instructions.
Coalition building along with clearer instructions, and better incentives were seen as
keys to better implementation (Bardach, 1977; Sabatier and Mazmanian, 1979).
The Rand Change Agent study (Berman and McLaughlin, 1978), one of the
most cited studies in policy implementation literature, found that policy
implementation is shaped at the macro- and micro- levels, “macro” being the level
where policy is made and “micro” where policy is implemented. According to
Berman and McLaughlin (1978) there is conflict between microlevel implementation
and macrolevel demands. The Rand study (Berman and McLaughlin, 1978)
concluded that local districts (micro) may adopt certain policies that are mandated by
the federal or state government (macro), but implementation is not a given.
Moreover, long term policy implementation is even less assured. The amount of
project resources did not matter as much as the scope of the project. If the aim of the
policy initiative was targeted enough to generate change at the microlevel, then the
policy might be implemented. Furthermore, district leadership was essential. If the
district leaders including principals and superintendents did not lead the policy
implementation or support implementation, then failure was almost certain.
Local implementation strategies were essential to effective implementation.
At the microlevel, effective strategies include feedback that is timely, correction of
46
errors, as well as building a broad base of support for the policy. Effective strategies
are: professional development and training, viewing others implement the policy,
microlevel decision making opportunities, and development of local materials.
Lastly, local leadership style and motivations were also important to effective policy
implementation.
McLaughlin (1991) reiterates the findings of the original Rand study still
hold. She specifically points to the conclusion regarding local choices; it is the local
choice of how or if the policy will be put into practice. Since the initial Rand study
however, there have been instances where beliefs changed after practice changed;
similarly, outside agents such as outside consultants and external developers cannot
help produce change. McDonnell and Elmore (1987) researched the affects of place
on policy implementation. They focused on a new type of policy implementation
literature, the idea that policy design and the instruments it used would influence
implementation. And, Fuhrman, Clune, and Elmore (1988) looked at how place
mattered in policy implementation. They found that place matted because each place
is unique with its own politics, culture, and histories, all affecting policy
implementation. These studies built on the early policy implementation literature
such as the Rand study.

Current Implementation Research
All policies have goals, targets, and tools. And though these are fundamental
to policy design, according to Honig (2006) policy designs have changed or are
47
changing. Early educational policy goals often sought to bring help or change to
small groups. For example, the ESEA of 1965 targeted low income students, but its
goals were vague, its targets limited to poor children, and its tools were to give
money to schools. In today’s policy world, many policies seek to bring large scale,
systemic changes across various stokeholds including schools, districts, states, and
communities. Thus, the policy designers are broadening the scope of targets and
goals. Furthermore, the tools they use to bring change have also expanded. Today,
incentives, mandates, and sanctions are the tools used to force change and sometimes
policies use a mixture of tools depending on the goals, targets, and scope of the
policy. For example, No Child Left Behind targets all students, it goals are
extraordinary (all children proficient), and it utilizes incentives, mandates, and
sanctions.
Loeb and McEwan (2006) apply economic principles to education policy
implementation. One area they see as problematic to implementation is the
misalignment of goals between policy makers and implementers. They reason that if
there is misalignment of goals between the macrolevel and the microlevel then
implementation is affected. If the goals are misaligned, then the policy tools need to
be used to offset the misalignment. Smylie and Evans (2006) argue that group norms,
expectations, and sanctions can influence policy implementation also. Group norms,
expectations, and sanctions, can influence individual and group motivations and
actions with regard to new or potential change. Thus, according to Loeb and
48
McEwan (2006) how a group feels about a policy can affect how or if an individual
acts or implements a policy.
Lastly, McLaughlin (2006) points researchers to the policy problem. Policies
are created and designed to solve a particular problem. Therefore, it is indicative to
get the problem right and then figure out what the solutions to the problem are. If
the goals, targets, and tools are misaligned then the policy will be ineffective and
surly not implemented, because the actors will not implement the policy. Making
sure the policy has the right means and ends is the most important part of policy
design. But, McLaughlin (2006) also points out that problems can change over time
and then solutions need to change along with them. Moreover, solving one problem,
can create new issues and new problems.
In summary, each policy has goals, targets, and tools. It is important to make
sure these are correctly aligned with the problem the policy intends to affect.
Furthermore, important to implementation is the goal. If the goal is misaligned with
the belief of the implementer, then the tools need to offset this misalignment for
effective implementation. Also, group dynamics will affect change. If the group
desires change, then group dynamics can positively effect change, but if the group is
opposition to change, this too will effect implementation. Overall, it is important to
look at how the policy’s goals, targets, and tools interplay with the people, and
places to study policy implementation.

49
Conclusions from the Literature
The literature suggests that academic rigor is important to bachelor’s degree
completion. Rigorous high school coursework, which includes increasing the number
of core curriculum classes, certain class combinations and specific content courses
such as Algebra II and Precalculus, and courses that are rich in quality and intensity,
do have strong, positive impact on student outcomes and long term success.
Research also shows that the number of courses is an element of a rigorous
curriculum, but it is not the number alone; what is also important is the quality and
intensity of the content. Content difficulty and quality also makes a difference in
student gains.
In addition, there has been a movement to end social promotion and many
school districts have created policies focused on ending social promotion. However,
even when faced with test-based promotion/retention, the overall findings of these
policies to end social promotion show mixed results. Retention in early grades may
raise standardized tests if interventions are involved during the retained year, but the
long term effects associated with retention may negate these gains in the subsequent
years. Furthermore, it seems that interventions and increased instruction is just as
effective as not socially promoting students. It is Policy 4502’s goal to end social
promotion. It is this researcher’s attempt to find out if it is being effective in its goal.
Finally, policy implementation researchers have concluded that though policy
is written at the macrolevel, it is carried out at the microlevel. It is important to make
sure each policy’s goals, targets, and tools are correctly aligned with the problem the
50
policy intends to change. To generalize, it is important to examine how the policy’s
goals, targets, and tools interplay with the people, and places.
Using this literature review as a foundation for future research, this
researcher will apply the concepts, theories, and findings of past studies to help
analyze the data from Chapter 4 to draw conclusions and make recommendations.
This study seeks to inform policy makers, practitioners, and institution as a whole
regarding Policy 4502’s implementation and effectiveness.
51
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study is to research how the Hawaii Board of Education’s
Middle Grade Promotion Policy, Policy 4502, is being implemented at the school
level. This chapter includes the research questions and a description of the research
design. This chapter also includes the sampling procedure and population,
instrumentation, and procedures for data collection and analysis.
This study focused on teachers’ and administrators’ beliefs and behaviors
associated with the middle grade promotion policy, Policy 4502. The goals of the
policy are embedded in the HBOE’s 4500 promotion policy series. Policy 4502
states that in order for sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students to be promoted, they
need to have a passing grade in the four core subjects of language arts, math, science,
and social studies. In order to be passing these four core courses, the students need to
be able to meet or at least be approaching proficiency on grade level benchmarks
(Policy 4501 and 4502). The goals of the policy are: to raise student achievement
through increasing the number and complexity of the courses students take (rigor);
end social promotion; help students be prepared for high school level work and
beyond; increase motivation of students by making middle grades relevant to both
students.

52
Research Questions
The main questions this study seeks to understand are:
• How is Policy 4502 being implemented at the school level?
• Is it achieving its goals?
To help find the answers to these questions, the following sub-questions will
be addressed:
• Do teachers and administrators know the goals of the policy?
• Do teachers and administrators believe the basic elements of the policy
are the way to achieve these goals?
• Do teachers and administrators implement the policy with fidelity and do
their beliefs help or hinder their implementation of the policy?
• What behaviors are associated with the policy?
• What are barriers to full implementation of the policy?

Research Design
This is a policy implementation case study. According to Stake (1995) a case
study is the study of a single entity and that by studying a single entity one can come
to understand it with depth and detail. Patton (2002) sees a single case study as being
made up of smaller cases such as individuals, organizational units, and specific
groups. The subject of this case study is Policy 4502 and how it is working and
being implemented at each organizational unit, which is the school level.
“Organizations don’t act, people do,” (Ulrich and LaFasto, 1995); therefore, it is
53
important when studying the organization to see how and what the individuals inside
the organization are doing. For the purposes of this study, this researcher looked at
how teachers and administrators collectively implement Policy 4502 at the individual
schools, thus helping us understand how the organization is implementing Policy
4502.
This study used a qualitative approach to collect data. This method was
selected based on the nature of the research questions. For this qualitative data
collection, interviews were conducted from each grouping of people: eighth grade
teachers, ninth grade teachers, middle/intermediate school administrators, and high
school administrators. A total of 13 interviews were conducted: three, eighth grade
teachers, three, ninth grade teachers, four middle/intermediate school administrators,
and three high school administrators. For the eight schools that participated in this
study, at least one teacher or administrator or both was interviewed. Each aggregate
interview required a separate set of interview protocols. The goal for this study was
to gain an understanding of how the middle/intermediate school teachers and
administrators and the high school teachers and administrators perceived the
implementation of the Hawaii Middle Grade Promotion Policy, Policy 4502.

Population and Sample
Using purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002), this researcher looked at how the
policy was being implemented in two higher performing middle/intermediate schools
and two lower performing middle/intermediate schools. To get the perspective of
54
how effective the policy was being implemented, interviews were also conducted at
the high schools these middle/intermediate school feed into. The performance of the
individual middle/intermediate schools was based upon the school’s performance on
the Hawaii State Assessment as reported on the school’s “School Status and
Improvement Report,” for school year 2008 (SSIR). Each low performing
middle/intermediate school had the number of students (sixth, seventh, and eighth)
performing lower than the state target scores of 65% proficient in reading and 35%
proficient in math (which were the 2007 target scores set by the state Department of
Education). Each higher performing middle/intermediate school had reading scores
at or above the 65% reading proficiency target and the 35% proficiency target for
math. This study considered using the middle/intermediate school’s retention rate of
eighth graders, which is also reported on the SSIR, but, there is not much variance
among high and low performing middle/intermediate schools. A total of 10
middle/intermediate schools were identified as possible participants.
The high schools chosen for this study were the feeder schools of the
intermediate/middle schools that participated in this study.

Data Collection Procedures
Data collection began once approval was received from the University of
Southern California’s Institutional Review Board and the Hawaii Department of
Education’s Institutional Review Board. Once the appropriate approval was received,
this researcher began contacting middle/intermediate schools that fell within the
55
study parameters. A total of 10 middle/intermediate schools and the high schools
they feed into were identified as possible participants. This researcher contacted the
head administrator at the schools via email, informing them of the study and
approval and also asking them if the schools were willing to cooperate and give the
okay for me to contact their staff. Four middle/intermediate schools agreed to
participate (two higher performing and two lower performing). Once, interviews
were conducted at the middle/intermediate schools, the high school the
middle/intermediate feeds into was contacted. Eight schools in all participate in this
study.

Instrumentation
The interview protocols were developed through careful study of the Chicago
Public Schools surveys used to study its promotion policy (available at
http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/index.php), in conjunction with this researcher’s
own understanding of the promotion policy and with consultation with my
dissertation chair and committee. Separate protocols were developed for each
designated group: eighth grade math teachers; ninth grade math teachers;
middle/intermediate administrator; or high school administrator. Drafts of each
protocol were developed, piloted, and revised (See Appendix A).

56
Data Analysis Procedures
This researcher conducted a total of 13 face-to-face interviews using a
standardized open-ended interview format (Patton, 2002). Some questions were
followed up with clarifying questions that were unscripted.
Each interview was recorded and scrutinize for reoccurring themes and
information. The data from the transcribed interviews were then analyzed and
triangulated between high and low performing middle/intermediate schools, and their
feeder schools.
To triangulate the interviews, this study compared the answers from each
eighth grade teacher of whom there were three; with the interviews of the
middle/intermediate school administrators, of whom there were four; with the
interviews of the ninth grade teachers, of whom there were three; with the answers of
the high school administrators, of whom there were three. I further compared the
individual answers of each person with the answers in the group in which they
belonged (comparing all eighth grade teachers’ answers with each other, all ninth
grade teachers’ answers with each other, and so on). Considering these comparisons,
I looked for similarities, differences, and emerging themes.
The units of analysis were: each individual school, the groups, (both high and
low performing middle/intermediate schools, both middle/intermediate and high
schools, intermediate schools and its feeder schools, and all high schools together)
and all eight schools combined.
57
In addition, the interview data analysis was combined with document analysis
of Hawaii Department of Education documents such as memos, School Status and
Improvement Reports, Superintendent reports, along with Hawaii Board of
Education memos and policies.

Limitations of the Study
This case study is a snapshot in time. Due to the sample size, the findings
may not be generalizable. Also, the participating schools were all on the island of
Oahu and therefore may not accurately reflect state wide policy implementation.
This study is also limited by the number of schools and individuals who were willing
to cooperate.
In addition, though this study tried to look at actual practices, this study is
limited to the perceptions of those individuals who participated. Furthermore, there
are three parts to rigorous curriculum: increasing the number of courses, increasing
the intensity of the course or subject matter such as Algebra I and/or higher
standards, and lastly increasing the quality and intensity of instruction. For this
study, I only looked at the quality and intensity of instruction.
Chapter four will present the findings of this study.
58
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH FINDINGS

Education policy over the past fifteen years has grown in complexity, but
maintains the same fundamental structure: goals, targets, and tools. Early educational
policy started with broad goals such as educating the poor or those with special
needs (Honig, 2006). Educational policies today aim to break down systemic
problems with explicit improvements (Honig, 2006). Hawaii’s Middle Level
Education Promotion Policy, Policy 4502, is one such policy; this policy targets a
systemic problem in Hawaii’s educational pipeline—the rigor in middle/intermediate
school education. The purpose of Policy 4502 is to ensure middle school students are
academically prepared to enter and pass high school, specifically ninth grade. Policy
4502 states:
The Board of Education recognizes that young adolescence is a critical period
in the development and education of students. If middle level students are to
be adequately prepared for the academic rigor of high school and beyond
they must continue to achieve in the core content areas. Therefore, all
students in grades six, seven and eight shall be required to take language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies. Students must receive a passing
grade and receive an academic unit for each of these core content courses in
order to be promoted to the next grade level. Successful completion shall be
based on academic performance and successful student progress toward
identified benchmarks specified in the Hawaii Content and Performance
Standards.

59
The goals of the policy are embedded in the HBOE’s 4500 promotion policy
series. In order to be passing these four core courses, the students need to be able to
meet or at least be approaching proficiency on grade level benchmarks:
Successful completion shall be based on academic performance and
successful student progress toward identified benchmarks specified in the
Hawaii Content and Performance Standards (Policy 4502).

This phrase makes reference to the Hawaii Content and Performance
Standards or HCPS III which were adopted as the state’s curriculum in 2005
(http://standardstoolkit.k12.hi.us/index.html). The basic intent of the Hawaii Content
and Performance Standards is to create a standards-based system which is suppose
to: (1) to assure equity by holding all students to the same expectations; (2) to define
the content and skills that enable quality student performance; and (3) to clearly
describe what ALL students should know and be able to do
(http://standardstoolkit.k12.hi.us/index.html). Standards-based education is to ensure
all students, regardless of race, school, gender, or socio-economic standards, are
meeting the same academic and performance standards. Therefore, the goals of
Policy 4502 are: to raise student achievement through increasing the number and
complexity of the courses students take (rigor); end social promotion (the act of
being promoted along with same aged peers regardless of skills and knowledge);
help students be prepared for high school level work and beyond; and increase
motivation of students by making middle grades relevant to students. Clearly, the
Board of Education recognizes the importance of middle level education and its
effect on high school completion and post-secondary education. But, how effective
60
has policy 4502 been implemented? Is it being implemented as the policy makers
intended?
The purpose of this study is to inform Hawaii’s educational policy makers
regarding the implementation of Policy 4502. By looking at the perspectives of
school officials, at both the middle/intermediate level and the high school level, this
study seeks to understand and shed light on Policy 4502’s implementation and if it is
achieving its goals.
The main questions this study seeks to understand are:
• How is Policy 4502 being implemented at the school level?
• Is it achieving its goals?
To help find the answers to these questions, the following sub-questions will
be addressed:
• Do teachers and administrators know the goals of the policy?
• Do teachers and administrators believe the basic elements of the policy
are the way to achieve these goals?
• Do teachers and administrators implement the policy with fidelity and do
their beliefs help or hinder their implementation of the policy?
• What behaviors are associated with the policy?
• What are barriers to full implementation of the policy?
To begin, this study will start with discussing the findings with the sub-
questions. By analyzing the sub-questions, this will address the principal question,
61
“How is the policy being implemented at the school level and is it achieving its
goals?”

Participants
The participants in this study were three eighth grade teachers, two from
higher performing middle/intermediate schools and one from a lower performing
middle school. The two eighth grade teachers from the higher performing middle
school were both veteran teachers who had been teaching for more than eight years.
The eighth grade teacher at the lower performing school was in his/her first year of
teaching.
There were a total of four middle/intermediate school administrators that
participated in this study, one from each of the four middle/intermediate schools. Of
the four administrators at the middle/intermediate schools, two were principals and
two were vice (assistant) principals; all had been administrators for at least five or
more years.
There were three ninth grade teachers that participated in this study. Of the
ninth grade teachers, two were from the high schools that the lower performing
middle/intermediate fed into. All of the ninth grade teachers were teachers who had
been at their respective schools for at least two or more years.
Of the three high school administrators, two were from higher performing
schools while one was from a feeding lower performing school. One of the four
administrators from the middle/intermediate school had also been an administrator of
62
the fourth feeding high school (therefore, there was an administrative perspective for
all four high schools regarding policy implementation). All of the high school
administrators that participated were vice (assistant) principals, and all of the
administrators had been administrators for more than two years; however, two of the
three were in their first year at their respective schools.
In all, this study had at least one representative from each of the eight schools
that participated in this study and one administrator for all of the middle/intermediate
schools.
For the next section, data will be given for each of the sub questions.

Data
Sub-question 1: Do teachers and administrators know the goals of the policy?
Overall, the teachers, both eighth and ninth grade, as well as the
administrators knew about the policy and could deduct some of the goals of the
policy: to raise student achievement and to make sure students are prepared before
moving on to the next level.
The middle/intermediate school teachers had a difficult time pinpointing the
specifics of the Middle Grade Promotion Policy and its goals, while the
middle/intermediate school administrators knew about the policy and could identify
two main goals of the policy: raise student achievement and make sure students are
academically prepared before moving to high school.
63
Eighth grade math teachers at both low and high performing schools seemed
mixed in their knowledge of the details of the goals of the policy. When asked what
the goals of the policy were, one eighth grade math teacher at a high performing
school stated:
No, I don’t know…I mean I can guess why that would be in effect, but I
don’t know specifically… my guess would be that students aren’t allowed to
fail. They have to work until they can pass a course; I mean how can you go
on to the next level if you haven’t successfully completed the prior level.

An eighth grade math teacher at another high performing middle/intermediate
was more clear in his/her understanding of the goals of the policy, “I would imagine
to make them proficient in the benchmarks and standards that have been set up.” But,
one math teacher at a low performing middle/intermediate school seemed less
knowledgably about the policy; when asked about the policy, the teacher stated:
…I feel like it's a lot of social promotion…just kind of moving them along.
Figuring out ways they earn the credits so that if they're falling behind a
couple of years it's like they got to get pushed up. They talk about pushing
the kids up to the next grade even if they haven't mastered the material.

It should be noted that this teacher was in her first year teaching in the Hawaii DOE,
while the two eighth grade math teachers of the higher performing schools had been
teaching in Hawaii for more some time. But, his/her overall perception from
conversations he/she had with colleagues was that the goal is to promote students
even if they have not learned the material needed for the next level.
Though the eighth grade teachers differed in their opinion of the goals, the
administrators of middle/intermediate schools articulated their perceptions
64
consistently. When asked if she knew the goals of the policy, one administrator of a
low performing middle/intermediate school answered confidently and clearly:
The goals of the policy are to prepare the students for high school they need
to have the foundation in their core courses. And I believe it is mainly to gear
them for success so that they need to have this core foundation of courses, to
prepare them for success.

Another administrator at a higher performing middle/intermediate school also stated
the goals in her own words:
What do I know about it? Well, students need to pass all their subjects so in
order to progress to the next level….to have the students be able to have the
background [and] the subject matter before leaving that grade level to go to
the next grade level.

Ninth grade teachers and administrators also knew about the policy and their
ideas regarding the goals were inline with the middle/intermediate school
administrators. When asked about the goals of the policy, a ninth grade math at a
lower performing school replied:
I would expect that we would try to make sure that the students coming from
grade to grade would have those prerequisite skills when they move up and
by insuring that they have a passing grade that you know, they’re at least
meeting the standards of that grade level so when they go on to the next grade
level they are prepared to tackle the next highest you know material which
you know, obviously in math builds on what came before so as they move up
from seventh to eighth they have the understanding of you know how to do
multiplication and use negatives and stuff like that.

Another ninth grade math teacher, this one from a high performing school stated:
I believe it’s to get them ready for the high school math. Whether it’s starting
with algebra or pre-algebra, that they have those basic skills; that they can
survive in that.

65
When asked about the policy, an administrator (of a different low performing high
school from above) felt he/she didn’t know about the policy, but when asked to
guess, he/she characterized the goals as:
I would think to have kids be prepared to enter into the next grade level in
order to be successful with the content and standards.

An administrator at a high performing high school had a slightly different
understanding of the goals, but one that is valid and pertinent:
The goal of the policy is to standardize their grading which ultimately leads
to promotion. So rather than being subjective about promoting students
there’s some objectivity to it. And then also to maintain higher standards for
students.

Therefore, from the interviews, this researcher found that the eighth grade
math teachers, the middle/intermediate administrators, the ninth grade math teachers,
and the high school administrators’ perceptions of the goals were consistent with the
researcher’s understanding of the goals. All but the one eighth grade math teacher of
the low performing school, perceived the goals of the policy as making sure the
students were academically prepared for the next level. Those that knew the policy
and could identify the goals of the policy the best were the middle/intermediate
administrators and the ninth grade math teachers.

66
Sub-question 2: Do teachers and administrators believe the basic elements of the
policy are the way to achieve these goals?
What was prevalent was that many thought the policy is a good idea, but the
policy, in its present form, is not the way to solve the problems of low performing
students moving on to the next level.
When asked about how he/she felt about the middle school promotion policy,
one eighth grade teacher at a high performing school remarked:
I think in general it’s, it’s something that the Department of Education says,
because it sounds like the right thing to do. …I think it’s almost like a band
aid. We know we can’t let them go on. So, we have to make a policy so we
can catch it…

An eighth grade teacher at a lower performing school felt that, “[I]t’s
unfortunate that we’re even in this position. It’s just frustrating for me that so many
kids are held back and then just to the point where they’re just pushed forward.”
These teachers’ perceptions are that they know that low performing students
shouldn’t move forward, and that there should be more to the policy. The latter
teacher expresses something important, students are getting pushed forward.
An administrator at a low performing school expressed the realities of
implementing the policy when so many students come unprepared:
The intent of it is good and I like it. But, at the same time too, the flip side of
that, is that the schools have to be the one to do it…I think the challenge is
that at the middle school level we have to be the ones that have to figure out
now what do we do with this child because we want to make sure this child is
successful to be bumped up, so that they can get up to ninth grade… so the
middle school policy is very difficult for us because we have to find
alternatives for the students that are not successful…

67
Of the freshman that enter the high school from this low performing
middle/intermediate school, less than 65% graduate on time and about 35% of the
freshman dropout before graduating.
Another administrator at a low performing middle/intermediate school agrees
with the policy as it is, stating:
So I totally agree with it, I mean it keeps everybody accountable where the
kids know that, “I gotta pass seventh and eighth.” So, you know, it’s more of
an accountability to make sure that they understand that they need those 10
credits to pass to get to the next level. May it be five from seventh to eighth
and vice-versa.

The same administrator did express that:
It’s tough. I almost think sometimes we shouldn’t have a no-fail policy given
that we have a lot of kids that don’t come to school for whatever reason; it’s
tough because we have kids that are 16 at our school but we can’t promote
them until they have the 10 credits….

Of the freshman that inter the high school this intermediate school feeds into,
less than 65% finish on time and about a 30% ninth grade dropout rate. The same
administrator went on to say:
So we try to find whatever alternatives to get those kids to get the 10 credits
to make that requirement to be promoted. ….we’ve had kids who’ve
supposed to have been seventh grade for two years in a row but with
correspondence—I’ve had parents paying for correspondence courses so they
can get caught up…We’re just trying to find ways to get our kids up there
somehow.

Clearly, the administrators at the low performing middle/intermediate schools
feel the pressure of the policy. They have high numbers of students that come up
from the elementary schools far behind; they are trying to help students get the
credits, so they don’t have too many 15 and 16 year old seventh and eighth graders.
68
It is clear that the focus is on getting the students “up” to the next level, instead of
focusing on making sure students get the interventions and gain the skills needed for
high school levels. The focus is on credits and not on skills.
The administrators at high performing middle/intermediate schools were
mixed in their feelings. One felt that the policy was a step in the right direction; it is
meant to increase the rigor of middle/intermediate school. However, this
administrator felt that their retention rate was already low and that their school has
higher standards than the middle school promotion policy; therefore, they really saw
no difference from before the policy.
Another administrator at another high performing middle/intermediate school
expressed some frustration with the policy:
Well I think it’s one more example of how somebody somewhere came up
with a policy and got others to help them develop it, but when they rolled it
out they did not clearly explain it to everyone, even though we were
begging....But still never clearly said to everyone all at the same time, “this is
what it is; this is the philosophy; here are the goals; this is what we’re doing;
this is why we’re not doing this.” Um and so, it’s really hard to implement
something that you don’t completely understand.

It is noticeable that the two administrators at the higher performing
middle/intermediate schools differed in their opinion regarding the policy. But, the
retention rates at both schools were similar: the former had a 1% retention rate and
the latter had a 0% retention rate in school year 2007-2008. The latter administrator
points out something that came out from other administrators: lack of district and
state support. The state has failed to guide, direct, and fund this policy.
69
The high school administrators believed in policy’s principles, but could
identify holes as to why students who were not ready for high school were still
making it through. One high school administrator pointed to one of the major
problems with the policy:
…I don’t necessarily think the policy is achieving its goals because the
problem is the grading system from teacher to teacher...even though we have
standards based education… A D is substantially below standard and they go
on to ninth grade…Nonetheless, the policy still allows that student to go to
the next level. So, and that doesn’t even take into account the varying grading
styles of each teacher.

This quote points to two major problems with the policy. First, it mentions
the inconsistencies in grading amongst teachers: one teacher may interpret a
benchmark differently than another and expect something completely different than
another teacher, one easier and one harder. The second issue is with the letter grade
of a D; of those interviewed, teachers and administrators alike believed a D was well
below an acceptable proficiency level, yet the policy allows students to receive them
and be passed to the next level with them.
An administrator from a low performing high school felt the problems start
earlier, and that a policy needs to address the elementary students before the middle
school promotion policy can really be effective:
I think it goes back to…when you look at the compulsory ed age being 6 and
are those kids coming in with the skills necessary to be able to succeed at first
grade level and from the get go those kids already being behind the eight ball.
Teachers working so hard to ramp them up and…it’s not just the academic
side that…its so much of the, the social, the emotional issues that our
children are entering school with that sets them back…

70
This administrator had prior experience at the elementary level and his/her
view is similar to how the administrators of the lower performing
middle/intermediate schools felt: the problem is deeper and more systemic than just
middle/intermediate school; it starts in the elementary schools and even before that.
Clearly, the lower performing schools felt the policy needs to address pre-middle
school and the students’ preparedness before middle/intermediate school.
The same high school administrator brought up a perceived lack of support at
the district and state level if the policy was to be implemented.
I think when you take a look at the AYP with principals being held
accountable for the retention rate, you know, for a principal to have to
answer, to…if you were a principal of a school, and you stick by that policy,
or any policy. If you were to say that, “you know at my school, as the
principal, any child not meeting grade level standards will not be promoted.”
Then you’re going to hold everyone accountable right? But at the same time
as a principal, are you going to get the support from…not just the DOE but
the Board of Ed and the community because you gonna have to face the
community with the number of kids that are retained. You’re going to be
viewed as someone who is not caring, not supportive, and I really don’t see
that principal getting a lot of support…

This administrator is referring to a misalignment between the goals of the
policy and tools of the policy and its conflict with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Policy. The Hawaii middle school promotion policy calls for students to be retained
if they do not get a passing grade, which should represent proficient or at the
minimum approaching proficiency. But, NCLB includes retention as part of the
formula for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); schools are negatively affective if
they have high retention rates.
71
The themes that emerged among those interviewed were: students are
socially promoted in elementary school and therefore come to the intermediate level
so far behind, it is hard to get them where they need to be academically before they
leave. This is very prevalent in the lower performing schools, but is also happening
in the high performing schools in smaller proportions. This creates a great burden on
the schools. Because of this, the teachers and administrators in both high and low
performing intermediate schools believe the policy is a step in the right direction, but
the policy needs to be examined and improved.
For higher performing schools, students too are not prepared. Furthermore,
there is not enough district support with regard to direction and clarification as well
as funding for safety nets or supports for failing students. And finally, holding
students back and giving them the same without any intervention, just time, is not
what most students need if they are holding back.
For lower performing schools, the problem is the same, but larger and deeper.
According to the eighth and ninth grade teachers and administrators in lower
performing intermediate and high schools, there is a higher percentage of students
being passed on to the ninth grade without the basic skills in math.
The same is true for higher performing middle and intermediate schools.
According to the ninth grade teachers and high school administrators interviewed,
there are still students who are passed on to ninth grade, but still struggle with basic
math skills of adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing and they also lack
sufficient skills in fractions and integers. According to the higher performing skills
72
theses are the ones who are passed on to pre-algebra in ninth grade. Some of these
students will end up failing ninth grade.
Overall, the high school teachers and administrators believe the policy is a
good idea, but they see that students are being passed on without really being
prepared for ninth grade level work; therefore, they see the policy as really having
minimal impact.
The math teachers in both higher and lower performing schools explained
that so many students are coming so far behind in math to eighth grade, it is hard to
carry out the policy. One ninth grade teacher of a low performing feeder school
stated that roughly thirty to forty percent of the students passed on to ninth grade are
well below proficiency.
I wouldn’t say that all of them are. I would say that perhaps 60 to 70% of
them are [proficient]. There is a large number of students that aren’t working
with the same skills as would be expected of a ninth grader. Some of them
can’t tell the difference between adding a negative or subtracting, some of
them don’t know their multiplication tables….I think it’s probably about
thirty or forty percent of them that are not prepared.

Another ninth grade teacher estimated that about 20% of the students coming
to ninth grade are really actually prepared for algebra I.
In conclusion, the school level officials believe the policy is a good idea, but
it is not doing enough to help make sure the students are prepared for high school
level work. For the next section of this paper, sub-questions three and four will be
reported together.

73
Sub-question 3: Do teachers and administrators implement the policy with fidelity
and do their beliefs help or hinder their implementation of the policy?

Sub-question 4: What behaviors are associated with the policy?

When examining whether or not the teachers and administrators are
implementing the policy as intended, it is important to look at what behaviors are
associated with implementation. And it is also just as important to look at whether or
not teachers’ and administrators’ beliefs help or hinder the policies implementation.
From the interviews, this study found contradicting statements between
teachers’ and administrators’ beliefs and their behaviors. For example, all the
teachers and administrators believed in the ideas of the policy: retain students who
are not getting passing grades. However, when implementing the policy, students
where allowed to pass that still were well below levels of proficiency.
First of all, one of the main problems is the tool used to implement and
enforce the policy of retention: teachers and their grades. Teachers differ in their
grading. First, not many teachers’ grades are 100% standards-based. Furthermore,
teachers vary in their interpretation and understanding of what student proficiency
and approaching proficiency looks like. And, moreover, many teachers’ grades are
based on behaviors and not skill levels. All of these practices allow students to get
the grade of a D, which many consider to be well below proficiency.
74
Another issue is that too many students are being socially promoted through
elementary school for the reason that that there is no promotion policy for
elementary schools. This makes it hard for the policy to be enforced at the
middle/intermediate level, because to really enforce the policy, there would be too
many students retained at the middle/intermediate level. Furthermore, students who
made progress during the school, but failed make up the two-to-three grade levels
they were behind when they came in from elementary level causes a problem in
policy implementation; teachers might be basing their grades off overall
improvement throughout the year and not whether the right skill levels have been
attained to be promoted. In all, these practices make teacher grading and
enforcement of the policy subjective and overall ineffective.
In addition to all of these, there is the practice of “credit recovery.” Credit
recovery is the practice in which some students who were retained or might be
retained are allowed to take a class to receive the needed credit of a class they failed.
The problem is that credit recovery is not focused on skill attainment per se, but
more on helping students regain the “credit” so they can move onto the next grade.
All of these practices have contributed to the dilemma that students who are
not ready for ninth grade level math are still being pushed through and therefore the
impact of the Middle Level Promotion Policy has not been what it should be in terms
of cutting back ninth grade retention and helping students graduate on time.
One more factor that may be interfering with the implementation of Policy
4502 is the conflict between the policy and the philosophy of middle schools. Middle
75
school philosophy is perceived to be that you support students as much as they need.
In adolescence, students are going through many issues: social, emotional, physical,
and academically. Students need a lot of support and help (Jackson et al, 2000). It
seems The Middle Grade Promotion Policy is in direct conflict with this philosophy.
When asked if his/her personal beliefs help or hinder their implementation of
the policy, the eighth grade teachers and middle/intermediate school administrators
all said that their beliefs help them. In addition, when they were asked if they
believed in retention, they all stated that they did. For example, when asked about the
personal beliefs of the policy, the eighth grade math teacher at a high performing
middle/intermediate school stated that his/her beliefs help when implementing the
policy:
I mean I guess it helps because I feel that it’s my job to make sure they learn
it and if they learn it they’ll pass the class. So, it should go hand in hand; I
mean there are some time when it doesn’t quite work, but it should be that
way.

But, when asked about his/her beliefs about retention and grading, the teacher stated
that:
If it was a perfect world, I probably would start failing I guess I don’t like
that word “failure”.…I mean my personal feeling is we keep passing students
who can’t do it. We give them a D because it’s easier than retaining them or
they came to class every day and they really tried hard… my personal feeling
would be it’s not really the grade you get but whether you learned the
information.

To interpret this statement, the teacher believes D’s do not reflect proficiency
levels worthy of being promoted to the next level, but he/she gives them and other
teachers give them to pass students ahead. Furthermore his/her beliefs are in conflict
76
with current practices and the policy implementation because, the teacher gives D’s.
When asked about grading, the teacher shared his/her grading policy was not 100%
standards-based:
No, it’s not standards based at all. Because we don’t use standards based
report cards. So basically I do 10% homework; 10% on a homework quiz
which is a quiz based on homework; And then I do like 30% on smaller tests
and then 50% on the final you know the larger; and they’re not standards
based, they’re basically separated by chapters and lessons.

In describing how homework is counted as part of the grade, the teacher
reveals that part of the grade is based on a behavior of turning or not turning in
homework and not on skill level of content knowledge, “homework is not graded in
terms of right or wrong. It’s graded in terms of tried or didn’t try.…Homework can
be done late...I don’t take off points for late homework. As long as they do their
homework…” Allowing students the ability to turn homework in late and not
grading homework might be in accordance with middle school philosophy (Jackson
et al., 2000).
This teacher has retained students, which does not go against his/her beliefs.
But, because the teacher’s grades are not 100% based on standards, the teacher may
be allowing students to pass with D’s to the next level. Furthermore, the teacher may
be basing grades on behaviors instead of skills. These are practices and beliefs that
all the eighth grade teachers participated in.
The administrator at the same middle/intermediate school corroborated the
teacher’s practices and perceptions, stating that the grading at their school was not
100% standards-based and that the practice of giving D’s is still the process: “it’s not
77
100%. We would like to think it’s 100%. I am sure there who are not really there yet.
But, I would say about 90%.” And when asked if his/her teachers give D’s, the
administrator said, “Oh yes!”
But, it’s not just the standards-based grading that is a problem, because the
elementary students use standards-based grading, and yet they pass students ahead
that are lacking the basic skills. This was alluded to directly and indirectly
throughout many of the interviews. One ninth grade math teacher described it in this
way:
A lot of the skills that they’re lacking…to me I don’t think it’s the middle
schools, that they’re not reaching them because its very, very, very basic
adding subtracting, multiplying and dividing—whole numbers. Not even
integers. It’s the whole numbers you know, fractions which when I was at the
middle school I felt that was the foundation that they need to succeed in high
school and by the time they came to middle school, they didn’t have it.

This statement shows that that the students are coming up to high school not
knowing their basic skills and furthermore the students are coming to the
middle/intermediate school lacking the basic skills.
One high school administrator perceived the policy as failing to achieve its
goals due to the grading policies of teachers and the inconsistencies associated with
grading and promotion and retention:
A D is substantially below standard and they go on to ninth grade. I was a
science teacher teaching eighth grade science a kid who got a D in my class
isn’t going to go very prepared to ninth grade. Nonetheless, the policy still
allows that student to go to the next level. So, and that doesn’t even take into
account the varying grading styles of each teacher.

78
Therefore, in its current form, the teachers and administrators at the higher
performing middle/intermediate school are implementing the policy; the problem is
that it allows for students who are not proficient or approaching proficiency to pass
with D’s.
The same problem is in the low performing middle/intermediate schools and
their feeder schools, but larger and more significant. The administrator of the next
middle/intermediate school shared with me that they had a 35% retention rate for
eighth graders. In addition, of the ninth graders who enter the feeder school, less than
70% graduate on time.
The lower performing middle/intermediate schools seemed to be in direct
conflict with reality and the policy. The teachers believed in retention and felt that a
D was totally insufficient:
Yeah, I would say, it’s hard, because like my deep personal belief is like a D
is unacceptable, like no student should be…I mean I think that’s how in
college right, if you get a D or an F, like that course doesn’t count; you got to
do it over.

But, when asked if the teacher gave D’s, he/she stated that he/she did. For this
teacher, even though he/she believes a D is not where the student should be, the
teacher would still pass a student to the next grade level with one. This was the same
of all eighth grade teachers; they all felt a D was insufficient, but they still gave them
and let students move onto the next grade and when asked if their colleagues gave
D’s, they all stated that most, if not all, did.
79
A ninth grade teacher pointed to the elementary schools, pointing to the
students not being prepared before they leave elementary school, “I think, some of
the teachers are working with some of the students that are well below even when
they come into sixth grade they’re trying to catch them up as they get on to ninth
grade…” This ninth grade teacher also pointed out something insightful as to why so
many students are being passed forward unprepared. He/she stated, “…some
teachers are more grading on the student’s progress; so that they can tell that the
student is progressing from, perhaps they came in third or fourth grade level in sixth
grade, you know, they’re progressing at like a grade level a year so that they pass
them through but…they’re still not at ninth grade level when they get there.” Again,
this teacher points to the subjectivity of teacher grading and enforcement of the
policy. Since students are progressing, it is hard for teachers to hold students back. It
seems their beliefs are in conflict with the policy. Teachers do not want to punish
students by retention if they are progressing from when they stepped through their
classroom door. Again, much of this is due to students being socially promoted
through elementary school.
This same teacher also points to a similar issue, teachers’ grades might be
based on effort and not necessarily on skills.
Some teachers grade on…simply being in the class or completing homework
assignments but not necessarily grading mastery of those concepts and I think
if they tend to grade on assignments that are more concerned with behavior
like completing homework or completing class work its’ not necessarily
going to prepare the student for ninth grade…

80
Grading systems like this can lead to grade inflation. Grade inflation is where
the grade does not reflect the actual skill level of the student, but is inflated by the
subjectivity and varying interpretations of teachers (Ziomek and Svec, 1997; Marsh
et al., 2006). Clearly, the reality of teacher grading interferes with their stated beliefs
about retention and policy implementation.
Administrators expressed similar conflicts between beliefs and reality. They
believed in retention; they believed in the policy; but they knew the realities of
needing to get students moved forward, out of middle/intermediate school to high
school. For example, one administrator at a low performing middle/intermediate
school stated:
Well, I’m really torn about that… The reason why I say I’m torn about this is
because the state policy dictates that the child has to pass both the seventh
and eighth grade and if they don’t pass—what do we do with them? Do we
keep them?...because if we don’t push up to ninth grade, when they’re 14
years old they will never graduate.

This administrator expressed open conflict with his/her beliefs of retention
and the realities that too many students are and would be damaged if the policy is
implemented as it was intended. This could be in part due to the lack of interventions
schools are giving to retained students; research showed that students who receive
systematic remedial instruction can benefit (Alexander, Enwisle, & Dauber, 1994).
Another administrator at a lower performing middle/intermediate school
expressed similar concerns with implementing the policy as it was intended, because
they have 15 and 16 year olds still in seventh and eighth grade.
81
It’s tough because we have kids that are 16 at our school but we can’t
promote them until they have the 10 credits. We gotta find a way to get those
ten credits … We try to find ways to get the kids to be at least not more than
one grade level behind. Cause research shows that any time they’re two years
behind they not going to school and graduate.

Clearly, these administrators’ beliefs are in conflict with the policy. They
believe in research that reports the negatives associated with retention and they feel
compelled to find alternatives for credit recovery, so students are not stuck. This
leads to the practice of finding ways to “push” students through.
Finding ways to push students through has created the phenomenon of “credit
recovery.” The issue with credit recovery is that schools get focused on the idea of a
“credit” and not, according to the ninth grade teachers, the real need--skill
attainment. Receiving a credit and having the skills is not the same. This is
demonstrated in what one ninth grade teacher at a lower performing school stated.
When asked if students come prepared, the ninth grade teacher stated:
There is a large number of students that aren’t working with the same skills
as would be expected of a ninth grader. Some of them can’t tell the difference
between adding a negative or subtracting, some of them don’t know their
multiplication tables. They don’t understand the role of, you know, when to
use multiplication or division when they’re solving a real world story
problem type of situation many of them you’re introducing new concepts and
you have to go backwards by a lot just to catch them up. So I, you know, I
think, I think it’s probably about thirty or forty percent of them that are not
prepared.

This statement is similar to what other ninth grade teachers stated and though it
doesn’t mention “credit recovery” it points to the issue: students are making it into
ninth grade without the necessary skills. Credit recovery might be one contributing
factor. Furthermore, this is what was stated about credit recovery:
82
…we had over a dozen students push through that actually were still making
up credits in their core classes from seventh and eight grade; it’s a it’s a real
challenge to put that group of students into a class with all the students that
did pass those core classes…

One of the issues with credit recovery is that not all credit recovery systems
are the same, some are computer and test based, some are correspondence courses,
and some are summer school programs. Moreover, not many are taught by licensed
teachers. One administrator described their credit recovery program like this:
It’s a standards based program and we cut out a lot of the fluff and extras that
are in the course and we get right down to the core; and they have 5 weeks
going to school here four hours a day, at home three hours a day, and we can
log what they do; we tell’em straight up, “your going to have to do this; your
going to have to work weekends; you can’t have any fun.” And as soon as
they can take all of those tests and prove that they know the material with a
70% or higher, they get the credit…

This type of credit recovery course is computer based. The students have to
pass the tests to make up the credit. For this particular program, the teachers are
virtual. The people present at the school level are Educational Assistants and not
Highly Qualified Teachers. Another administrator described his/her credit recovery
program like this:
We’ve had kids who’ve supposed to have been seventh grade for two years in
a row but with correspondence—I’ve had parents paying for correspondence
courses so they can get caught up. So, that has worked and we will continue
to do that. I think it’s in favor of us where we’re not having the kids here at
15 and 16. We’re just trying to find ways to get our kids up there somehow.

Again in courses like this, the emphasis is credit recovery and not necessarily
skill attainment. This begins the practice of finding ways to push students up,
described in this way:
83
So student achievement is number one. But beyond that, the kids that don't
show up or are failing or don't pay attention or aren't getting the work done or
are just struggling and need the extra help or whatever those kids I feel like
they are potentially allowed to fail and be held back once or twice but at
some point it's like yeah after a year or two it's like what do we gotta do to
push you up to the next grade.

One problem with such a program is that if students could learn the skills and
demonstrate the skills by taking a five week course, why did the student need to take
the regular class to begin with. Some students are catching onto this. Students are
figuring out that they can goof off the whole year, then take a shorter credit recovery
course, whether it be summer school or computer based, pass it, and then move on to
the next grade.
Realistically, this phenomenon happened because the students that are
retained get stuck in middle/intermediate school. They are stuck because they did not
pass a course(s). Determining whether or not the student didn’t pass due to behaviors
or lack of skills is also a problem. Considering the grading practices of teachers, it is
hard to determine. Considering the different types of credit recovery programs, it is
also hard to determine if students are required to demonstrate the necessary skills
before they receive the credit.
The perceptions for both high and low performing schools seemed to be that
though the policy implementers believed in retention and promotion, students that
are well below proficiency are still being promoted through to ninth grade. This is in
direct conflict with the policy’s goals. The policy is meant to ensure students are
proficient or at the very minimum approaching proficiency in all four core subjects
84
before leaving middle/intermediate level. This could be a result of students being
passed on to the next grade level with D’s, or the inconsistencies and subjectivity of
grades, or teachers not wanting to punish students who at least made some progress
throughout the year.
These practices lead to this study to consider whether these practices are
actually in step with middle school philosophy and in direct conflict with it. One
ninth grade teacher pointed this out:
There’s a different philosophy I think. I think they have a different
philosophy than us. I know there’s the middle school philosophy of helping
them out as much as they can, retest, ahh, late homework….you know all that
kind of stuff. I mean it gives them so much breaks that many times, I don’t
know if they follow through with it....they actually get the supplemental work
they need to get done, to catch up with everyone else. And pick up the skills
to get by without being held back at the middle school. Um, I think
something needs to be done there.

According to the interviews, the teachers and administrators at the
middle/intermediate schools do believe in retention. However, the reality is that
students who are well below proficiency are still being passed forward. Therefore,
again, belief and reality are in direct conflict.
One difficulty is, according to those interviewed, students are too far behind
when they arrive to the middle grades. If teachers where to hold back all the students
who were not proficient or approaching proficiency, there would be too many to hold
back, risking overcrowding. Another problem is the subjectivity of teacher grading:
(1) what one teachers believes is meeting or approaching proficiency is not what
another teacher believes; (2) because there is no real standards-based grading
85
teachers are grading on behaviors and not skills; which because there is not
standards-based grading, (3) teachers give well below proficiency students D’s and
allow them to move forward. In addition to these practices, part of the problem might
be the focus on “credit recovery” and not on skill attainment.
In conclusion, the answer to this sub-question is that the middle/intermediate
teachers interviewed do believe in retention and have retained students. But their
practices contradict their beliefs, shown by the large numbers of students being
moved ahead without the proper skill attainment.

Sub Question 5: What are barriers to full implementation of the policy?
According to the ninth grade teachers and high school administrators
interviewed, students who are not proficient or approaching proficiency are still
being pushed up to high school. Ninth grade math teachers clearly see that there are
many students lacking fundamental math skills needed for algebra I or other high
school level math. Since we have looked at the behaviors and beliefs of teachers, it is
important to look at some of the perceived barriers.
One of the main barriers to full implementation is the variability in teacher
grading. Teachers differ in their interpretation of the standards and knowledge of
what approaching and/or meeting proficiency of the standards or grade level
benchmarks looks like. Furthermore, the lack of standards-based grading allows
students to pass with D’s. Another barrier is that too many students arrive at the
intermediate/middle school behind, due in part to students being socially promoted in
86
elementary school. In addition, there are no incentives to retain students and/or
follow the policy, only incentives for not implementing the policy. And, there is no
monitoring or oversight of the policy by state or district personnel and no help in
extra funding. Schools have to find their own safety nets for failing students which
leads to the practice of credit recovery (therefore it hurts/punishes schools to hold
students back and makes them over crowded with low performing students.). Credit
recovery is the practice of schools finding alternative ways to help students who have
been retained and need to gain the credit they did not get. Credit recovery is not
necessarily focused on the skills the students need, but on the credit.

Grading as a Barrier
Grading in the middle/intermediate school is not standardized and there is no
standards-based grading; even if standards based grading is implemented, teachers
differ in their interpretation of the grade level benchmarks and in their understanding
of what it means to be proficient or approaching proficiency in these benchmarks.
This means that when students pass, it is not necessarily based on whether the
students are able to perform at grade level or approaching grade level proficiency.
This was pointed out by a number of interviewees, both eighth and ninth grade
teachers and administrators. For example, a ninth grade teacher at a low performing
school stated:
And also some teachers have a different idea on what constitutes meeting the
standards. Some teachers grade on…simply being in the class or completing
homework assignments but not necessarily grading mastery of those concepts
87
and I think if they tend to grade on assignments that are more concerned with
behavior like completing homework or completing class work its’ not
necessarily going to prepare the student for ninth grade.

The non-standarization of teachers’ grading may create an inaccurate picture
of what a student can actually do. Grading on behaviors and not on skills creates
grade inflation. For example, the teacher might base 25% of their grade on tests, 25%
on homework, 25% on projects, and 25% on class participation, with additional extra
credit points possible. The problem is that homework and class participation is not
based on content performance, but just based on effort. Homework doesn’t need to
be correct, it just needs to be done. This means that grades are based on behaviors
and not performance indicators. This also means that teachers’ grades are inflated
and do not give an accurate reflection of a student’s true abilities.
Teacher variation in their understanding and interpretation of the grade level
benchmarks is a problem even if there was standards-based grading. Pointed out by
a number of interviews, what one teacher thinks proficiency of a particular
benchmark looks like could look very different from what another teacher thinks.
One administrator characterized it as:
…part of the barrier is not being consistent. I mean you got elementary going
standards based grading and you got secondary, intermediate and high
schools doing normal grading A, B through F… I think that if we’re going to
implement this across the board, if it can be done somehow. But with the
high school being letter grade, intermediate being letter grade, Elementaries
being standards based grading with meeting proficiency, being proficient, I
don’t know, we kinda lost in the shuffle…

The inconsistencies in interpretation and expectation are a barrier. Another
example is that some schools are letting the curriculum dictate the curriculum instead
88
of the state standards and benchmarks. For example, one high performing
middle/intermediate school allowed the text book to dictate instruction and not the
benchmarks. According to this eighth grade math teacher, they were using a high
school level text book, Algebra I. Thus, they were potentially working on higher
level skills than the eighth grade benchmarks. Therefore, when asked about
standards-based grading this teacher stated that it was difficult to answer, because
they were not focused on eighth grade benchmarks.
No, it’s not standards based at all, because we don’t use standards based
report cards. So basically I do 10% homework; 10% on a homework quiz
which is a quiz based on homework; And then I do like 30% on smaller tests
and then 50% on the final you know the larger; and they’re not standards
based, they’re basically separated by chapters and lessons.

Though this teacher later stated that they do look at the benchmarks and standards to
supplement, the response that since the report cards are not standards-based the
grades are not standards-based and that they grade based on the book chapters and
lessons illustrates an important point to this study: schools are inconsistent in grading
and what dictates their grades.
As stated earlier in this chapter, the lack of standardized grading contributes
to grade inflation and also contributes to the number D’s students are allowed to pass
with.
Furthermore, teachers in both high and low performing schools seemed to be
in agreement that there are too many benchmarks for the students to become
proficient or approaching proficient, when the students are so far behind when they
get there. The promotion policy states that “Successful completion shall be based on
89
academic performance and successful student progress toward identified benchmarks
specified in the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards.” (emphasis added)
However, the “identified benchmarks” are not identified in the HCPS III and they
were not mentioned by the teachers or administrators interviewed. One ninth grade
math teacher expressed it well, when he/she stated:
…there’s just no time; if they can’t do their multiplication, there’s not much
time to go back: “okay let’s practice, let’s drill; and let’s get it; let’s
understand it; and why.” .….I think that’s something that’s holding ‘em
back….they we have to cover all of this, this, this, this quarter, next quarter
we have to cover these standards….it’s only breadth not depth…

Clearly, the teachers have too much to cover and mastery is being forfeited to
exposure. Consequently, students are not gaining the skills necessary for harder,
more complex math, resulting in higher numbers of ninth graders being retained
and/or students who graduate without basic skills. Ginsberg et al., (2005) points out
that countries that score higher on international tests in math move slower and dig
deeper in the early years of math instruction. Furthermore, fourth graders in the
United States spend more time using calculators than any other county (Ginsberg et
al., 2005).

Social Promotion as a Barrier
The inconsistencies in teacher grading and interpretation and expectation of
performance indicators along with the excessive benchmarks teachers are expected
to cover also contribute to the number of students being socially promoted through
elementary school and eventually through middle/intermediate school.
90
According to one ninth grade teacher, he/she felt teachers were grading
students based on improvement from the beginning of the year to the end of the year,
and not on progress of grade level benchmarks and standards.
I think, some of the teachers are working with some of the students that are
well below even when they come into sixth grade they’re trying to catch them
up as they get on to ninth grade and some teachers are more grading on the
students’ progress; so that they can tell that the student is progressing from,
perhaps they came in third or fourth grade level in sixth grade, you know,
they’re progressing at like a grade level a year so that they pass them through
but…they’re still not at ninth grade level when they get there.

These students are the very students who have been socially promoted year
after year, beginning in elementary school. This teacher also stated that the students
who are socially promoted to the ninth grade are the very one’s who are often
retained in ninth grade. From looking at the retention rates of the
middle/intermediate schools, the eighth grade retention rate is significantly lower
than the ninth grade retention rate. The average retention rate of eighth graders was
1-2% (this is based on looking at the School Status Reports on the DOE website; not
counting the one administrator who reported his/her retention rate at 35%).
Therefore, it seems that the high school is more consistent on not letting unprepared
students pass, while elementary and middle/intermediate schools practice more
social promotion as demonstrated by the retention rates.

Lack of Incentives and District Support
What also became evident throughout the interviews was that there were no
real incentives for schools to implement the policy. For a school to implement the
91
policy, they are supposed to retain students. Schools that retain students are faced
with larger numbers of low performing students and the need to help those students
gain the lost credit. This creates disincentives to implement the policy. Schools will
be faced with over-crowding as well as the need for extra funding for credit recovery
programs.
In fact, the potential overcrowding of low performing students is a
disincentive to schools, especially the lower performing schools. For example, the
administrators of lower performing schools expressed the stress of having to help
retained students recover lost credits due to retention. Credit recovery helps retained
students pass so the students were not retained or stuck at a particular grade. One
problem with this is that sometimes credit recovery is easier than the actual class.
Students may fail the class knowing they will take it in summer school. Teitelbaum
(2003) found that simply increasing the number of credits was not enough; it was the
content and the quality of instruction that mattered too. According to Teitelbaum
(2003), teachers may dilute the curriculum for the lower performing students.
The administrators of low performing schools also have to have more safety
nets such as special motivation classes and alternative learning centers for struggling
students; these safety nets help the lowest of the low students as pointed out by this
statement:
Well the thing is at what point do we say how long do we retain the
child?...And so were the ones that are scrambling, “okay where do we put this
kid” you know. Then we find that some students they really would be at risk
if we put them in a regular classroom. So we have to find alternative
classrooms whether it’s the ALC. The ALC can just take so many kids too so
92
there’s requirements and that’s what we look for alternative education routes
for the students. We’re tasked with that.

The tone of this administrator points to a real dilemma for schools: the need
for funding, the need for support, and the need to help these students move on. The
higher performing schools worry less about safety nets and credit recovery, but they
still have the problem: unprepared students being passed to the next level. The
receiving high schools of both low and high performing schools all stated that
students, who were not ready for high school level work, were being allowed to pass
eighth grade. One higher performing middle school administrator expressed
frustration of having to come up with the extra funding to help low performing
students catch up. If schools hold student back or create interventions and safety nets
for students, they have to use their own funds. This becomes a deterrent to
implement the policy due to the fact that schools have limited resources.
Consequently, much of the burden of policy implementation is placed on the school
and ultimately the classroom teacher.
When students are held back, they are not given targeted interventions or
different instruction. They are usually placed in another classroom with a different
teacher and/or they may be placed in an alternative learning class or special
motivation class or they are provided other credit recovery opportunities. However,
this researcher is not sure if the instruction in these classes are targeted to help the
student gain needed skills.
93
District or state oversight or accountability regarding policy implementation
could help policy implementation, but all of the policy implementation and
monitoring is done at the school level. This researcher did not find any district and/or
state level monitoring of the policy, and so it might be hard for district and state level
personnel to know how the policy is being carried out and its effectiveness. School
level personnel interviewed expressed frustration at the lack of district and state
involvement in policy implementation. School level personnel expressed a desire for
clarification regarding the policy, funding, and professional development in
understanding the policy and its implementation. Furthermore, all high school
administrators and ninth grade math teachers interviewed stated that the policy is
having little to no effect on cutting down ninth grade retention.
In conclusion, barriers to full implementation are: teachers’ inconsistencies in
grading, interpretation of the standards, and knowledge of what is approaching
and/or meeting proficiency of the standards or grade level benchmarks. In addition to
grading, teacher beliefs may also keep them from enforcing the policy. Furthermore,
too many students arrive at the intermediate/middle school behind and there are no
incentives to retain students and/or follow the policy. In addition, there is no
monitoring or oversight of the policy by district or state personnel. Schools that do
implement the policy are faced with over crowding and providing the safety nets and
interventions for students. Currently there is no help in extra funding; therefore it
hurts/punishes schools to hold students back. And finally, when students are held
back at the intermediate/middle school level, schools are currently providing credit
94
recovery instead of interventions. Though they may seem the same, credit recovery
is more about the “credit” and less about the skill.

Discussion
The main question this study asks is: how is the Hawaii Board of Education’s
Middle School Promotion Policy being implemented at the school level and is it
achieving its goals?
To summarize the findings section, the themes are:
1. Most administrators and teachers know the goals of the policy: raise rigor
and help prepare students for the next level.
2. The policy, in its present form, is not as effective as it could be: The
ambiguity of the policy and the miss-aligned goals, targets and tools, keep the policy
from being implemented effectively. For example, elementary social promotion and
the varied interpretation of the benchmarks and the inconsistencies in grading keep
the policy from being effective. In addition, the policy may be in direct conflict with
teacher beliefs about retention and promotion, causing inconsistencies in
implementation. Thus, students are still being passed to ninth grade and they are not
ready for ninth grade subjects, particularly math Algebra I.
3. There is a lack of support/oversight from the state and district level;
Schools are left to fill in the gaps: students that are retained, receive the same thing
over again, no real difference, just more time or are placed in “credit recovery”
courses which are shorter and possibly less rigorous. There is no real help coming
95
from the district and state level to help this policy succeed, such as funding,
assistance and monitoring. The district or the state could help with funding and
support for, alternate learning programs, extended learning opportunities, and
interventions. Currently schools have to provide their own funding, monitoring, and
assistance; this is a disincentive for carrying out the policy and is burdensome. It is
easier to find ways to help students pass by looking at behaviors rather than a skill
level that shows they really know the content. Moreover, schools in lower
performing areas are left to fill in more safety nets than those in higher performing
areas; however, even students in high performing middle schools are being passed
ahead though they are not adequately prepared.
Comparing Hawaii’s middle school promotion policy to other states policy
can give insight toward the findings.

Criteria Referenced Promotion Policies
One problem for Hawaii’s promotion policy is that the criteria for promotion
and retention is based on the individual teacher’s interpretation of the grade level
benchmarks and standards, as per the promotion policy. This can be problematic for
two reasons. First, from interviews conducted for this project, teachers do not have
uniformed grading policies and their grades are not based solely on students’ ability
to perform benchmarked tasks (standards-based grading); therefore, students get
passed forward without having skills needed for the next level. Also, even if teachers
have standards-based grading, teachers are not consistent in their interpretation of the
96
benchmarked performance standards. This again leads to students being passed
forward without truly being ready for the next level. This is evident in the number of
students passing from the elementary level, where standards-based grading is in
effect. Furthermore, Teitelbaum (2003) found that increasing the number of courses
does not necessarily equate to increased rigor. He makes the case that teachers may
have diluted the curriculum for the lower performing students. In addition to the
inconsistencies in grading and benchmark/standards interpretation, the Middle Level
Promotion Policy, may be in direct conflict with teachers’ beliefs about retention and
promotion.
To help with these problems, other states and districts have established “test-
based” promotion policies, requiring students to pass a standardized test before
being promoted from gate keeping grades, usually 3, 5, and 8 (Marsh et al., 2006,
2009; McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano 2009; Allensworth, 2004; Roderick and
Nagaoka, 2005; Greene and Winters 2004, 2007). New York City, Chicago, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Long Beach, and Texas, all require students to
pass state or local level tests in gate keeping grades before being passed on to the
next level. For example, Florida’s promotion policy calls for all third graders to
demonstrate basic skills in reading before being promoted to the fourth grade on the
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) (Greene and Winters 2004, 2007).
Chicago Public Schools’ (CPS) promotion policy has moved to a sliding scale
promotion policy based on report card grades, a certain level of national percentile
ranking on a norm referenced portion of the state assessment (at one time Chicago
97
used the Iowa Basic Skills Test), and discipline and attendance records in grades
three, six and eight (McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano 2009; Allensworth, 2004;
Roderick and Nagaoka, 2005; Nagaoka and Roderick, 2004). New York City Public
School students, in grades three, five, seven, and eight, must take and pass the New
York state assessments with at least a “meets some of the standards or partially
meets the standards” also known as a “Level 2” score in both the English language
arts (ELA) and mathematics assessment before being promoted (McCombs, Kirby,
& Mariano 2009).
Hawaii’s middle school promotion policy is not test-based and the procedures
for carrying out the policy have been inconsistent causing the policy to be ineffective
in most cases. A test-based promotion policy will help align the targets and tools of
the policy.
The goals for this policy are known by the teachers and administrators: raise
middle school student achievement and prepare them for high school. The targets are
established as the teachers and the students: students need to pass and teachers need
to teach the grade level content. However, the policy is lacking useful tools to
enforce and measure its effectiveness.
The tools for the Hawaii middle school promotion policy are: (1) teacher
identification of students who need to be retained; and (2) the actual retention of
students. McCombs, Kirby, and Mariano (2009) noted the importance of aligning
accountability incentives in a promotion policy. The current system does not account
for teacher variations or beliefs nor does it give positive incentives for carrying out
98
the policy. McDonnell and Elmore (1987) and Fuhrun, Clune, and Elmore (1988)
found that place does matter with regards to the nuances of policy implementation.
This is true regarding the Hawaii middle school promotion policy and though this
policy is implemented slightly different at each school, its overall implementation
has been the same--ineffective.
The limitations of the tools have led to the policies ineffectiveness. Promoted
students’ skill levels are not at levels the policy makers intended. This is due to the
disincentives of holding students back: overcrowding, lack of funding, and
unsystematic standards of practice. In addition, there are no tools for measuring
success or failure of the policy.
Research reveals that a test-based policy will help establish the rigor of the
desired skill level and it will take away the teacher variations of policy and
standards/benchmark interpretation. Adelman (1999, 2006) defined academic rigor
as academic intensity and quality and measured rigor by determining the academic
performance and assessed general learned abilities. Teitelbaum (2003) found that
increasing the number of courses wasn’t enough and that teachers may be lowering
expectations for the lower performing students. Having a test-based promotion and
retention system will take away the subjectivity and variability of the teacher based
promotion and retention system. It will further help determine those students who
have acquired the skill level ready to move on to the next grade.
Extending the promotion policy to the elementary level will help end social
promotion and the practice of passing unprepared students before they get to the
99
middle/intermediate schools. The goals of the middle school promotion policy are
out of sync at the micro and macro level (Loeb and McEwan, 2006). The Hawaii
Board of Education (macro level) established the policy, but the targets (students) are
socially promoted in elementary burdening the policy implementation (micro level).
The practice of social promotion at the elementary level could be a belief of the
elementary teachers that retention is detrimental for that age group. This creates a
problem in the middle/intermediate school, because according to the teachers and
administrators, there are too many students unprepared and they would have to hold
too many back to effectively carry out this policy. According to Loeb and McEwan
(2006) when there is a misalignment of the goals, the policy tools should need to be
used to offset the misalignment to influence individual and group motivation and
actions. Therefore, a test-based promotion system would alleviate the misalignment
of the goals and targets.
Most districts that have established test-based systems also have well
established appeal processes. Some districts use committees made up of
administrators, counselors, and teachers (both current grade and the grade to be
promoted too) (McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano, 2009). These committees review the
potential retained student’s work samples collected during the school year. Some
districts allow the parent as a committee member, while some allow the parent to
advocate for their child, but have no committee vote. Some committees also consider
attendance, grades, special circumstances, and alternative tests.
100
The districts with the more successful promotion policies are systematic in
their implementation. Hawaii needs a systematic approach to its middle school
promotion policy in order to be effective. The current system is too reliant on the
subjectivity of teachers and their variation of understanding. This researcher has
identified one criterion referenced and systematic approach to effective promotion
policies. Some school districts have other types of promotion policies that do not use
test-based systems. However, this researcher has not found many studies that have
examined their implementation and effectiveness. At this time the test-based systems
are the most researched.

Required Interventions and District Support
Secondly, the literature suggests that effective promotion policies are usually
accompanied by academic interventions for those students who do not pass the
standardized tests and/or are identified early as at-risk for retention (McCombs,
Kirby, & Mariano, 2009; Marsh et al., 2009; Xia & Kirby, 2009). Hawaii does not
have specific and identified interventions for retained students or students identified
as at-risk for retention. Students retained in Hawaii are placed back in the same
school and it is at the discretion and responsibility of the school to determine what
interventions the student will receive, if any. Furthermore, there is no district or other
accountability system in place to make sure the students receive any additional help
or interventions beyond retention and there is no monitoring of effectiveness of
interventions.
101
According to the New York City promotion policy, students who are at-risk
of being retained, by scoring a level 1 (shows serious academic difficulties) or level
2 (meets some of the standards or partially meets the standards) on the previous
years assessment are to receive in school supports such as small group instruction,
tutoring, and differentiated instruction. In addition to these in school supports,
students also are required to have out of school supports. The out of school supports
are after school tutoring, Saturday schools also known as Saturday Predatory
Academies (SPA), and if they fail to pass the spring assessment (scoring at the level
1) in the gateway year, they are placed in a mandatory summer school (McCombs,
Kirby, & Mariano 2009; Marsh et al., 2009).
In Chicago, students who failed to receive a passing score on the norm
referenced portion of the state assessment are placed in summer bridge programs
which are six weeks in length for three hours a day with a student to teacher ratio of
no more than 18:1. At the end of summer, they are given one more chance to pass the
test, and if they fail, they are retained with the option to appeal. Retained eighth
graders over the age of 15 are separated into alternative learning centers known as
Academic Predatory Academies (Jacob, Stone, & Roderick, 2004; McCombs, Kirby,
& Mariano, 2009).
In Florida, students receive district-designed interventions which include
summer reading camps and the following year, if they are retained, they have
individual plans with at least 90 minutes of daily reading instruction and are assigned
102
to a higher performing teacher (McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano, 2009; Marsh et al.,
2009).
Texas’ interventions require pull-out or after-school instruction and summer
school. They also emphasis individualized and differentiated instruction with
student/teacher ratios of no greater than 10:1. Furthermore, students who were
retained or promoted on appeal receive individual plans (Marsh et al., 2009;
McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano, 2009).
The research on retention shoes mixed results. Retaining a student without
providing much change has been more detrimental to students than productive
(Roderick, 1994; Holmes, 1989, Holmes and Mathews, 1984; Alexander, Entwisle,
& Horsey, 1997; Jimerson, 2001). According to Jimerson (2001) even students who
received systematic remedial interventions have short-term gains, but lose these
gains after the first or second year. As pointed out in the literature the negative
effects most associated with retention is student dropout rates (Roderick, 1994;
Allensworth, 2004; Holmes, 1989, Holmes and Mathews, 1984; Alexander,
Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997; Jimerson, 2001). However, Alexander, Entwisle, and
Horsey (1997) note that retention is a life process and there are other factors beside
retention that lead to students leaving school before graduation. Greene and Winters
(2007) found that retained students outperformed students who should have been
retained (however, the long-term effects are still unknown as he only followed the
cohort for 2 years and Holmes (1989) found that retained students show gains in the
first 3 years, but the short-term gains are lost to the long-term gains of high dropout
103
rates). Allensworth (2004) found that the Chicago promotion policy did not change
the dropout rates, but it did change who dropped out. There were larger numbers of
low performing students dropping out than before. But, the higher performing
students remained in school.
Jacob and Lefgren (2009) found that retention did not negatively affect high
school completion rates for students retained in sixth grade, but it had mixed effects
on students retained in the eighth grade. Those eighth graders who were retained, but
remained at the same school had negative effects, while those who were retained, but
moved to alternative learning centers did not show an increase in dropping out.
Hawaii might consider using alternative learning centers for retained eighth graders.
One principal interviewed stated that they could send their retained students to an
alternative learning center at a separate campus and that this was a unique option that
other districts might not have. The administrator stated that he/she had sent students
there and it did help them. For future studies, someone might study how alternative
campuses affects retained students in Hawaii.
McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano (2009) found that retained students in New
York City Public Schools performed better in math over the long-term than
promoted students that should have been retained. The results for retained and not-
retained students with regards to reading were mixed.
Some states/districts with promotion and retention policies, sought to change
the negative stigma associated with retention (Marsh et al., 2009; McCombs, Kirby,
& Mariano, 2009). According to their research, many see retention as a negative
104
consequence and not as a viable intervention. The states/districts with promotion
policies have tried to change attitudes and opinions regarding retention. Some
districts have started communication strategies to convince those who see retention
as a punitive consequence to think of retention as a viable intervention that is meant
to help students who are slower learners. However, more time in the same grade is
not the only intervention; as pointed out earlier, districts/states have other
interventions as well.
If the results of retention are mixed, then perhaps the goal needs to be to do
away with the need for retention all together. Therefore, the goal of the promotion
policy should be changed to making sure that students are prepared and retention is
the last resort. A standardized measuring tool accompanied with interventions and
progress monitoring can help this goal succeed.

There is no District or State Level Support
According to those interviewed, a serious problem with the promotion policy
is that there is no district or state level support to help schools implement the policy.
Furthermore, as discussed earlier, there are no established incentives or monitoring
tools for policy implementation, which are essential for policy implementation
(Baradach, 1977; Sabatier and Mazmanain, 1979; Loeb and McEwan, 2006;
McLaughlin, 2006). This is a design flaw in the policy and therefore it is important
to explain the education policy making process in Hawaii.
105
The Hawaii Board of Education (HBOE) is the sole education policy maker
in the state of Hawaii. No other government entity can create education policy
(Hawaii State Constitution, Article X, Section 3). In Hawaii there is only one Board
of Education for the whole state; it is made up of 13 elected officials, 10 from the
island of Oahu, with a represented from the districts of Maui, Kauai, and Hawaii
(a.k.a. Big Island). The HBOE is responsible for appointing and evaluating the State
Superintendent of Hawaii’s public schools.
The Legislature sets the budget and allocates the funds to the Department of
Education and the Governor releases the funds. The HDOE is funded from the
general fund and not from property tax as is the case in most other states. Funding
from the general fund is meant to create equity funding for schools. The majority of
the schools’ budgets are determined by the Weighted Student Formula or WSF. Each
student, depending on the amount of support the student needs, is given a weight and
the weight carries a dollar amount. For example, a student who is an English as a
Second Language Learner or ELL (English Language Learner) receives a higher
dollar amount than a regular education student. Special Education students who need
additional supports receive more money than an ELL student, depending on the
amount of supports they need. The idea is that the funding is based on the needs of
the student and the money follows the student.
The reality is that the money follows the student up to a certain point. The
WSF budgets are allocated based on the enrollment on “child count date,” which is
sometime in early to mid August. If a student moves after child count date, the
106
money does not follow him/her, but stays at the former school. There are other funds
allocated to schools outside the WSF such as Title I monies; Title I funds are federal
dollars and these are based on the percentage of low income students (students
receiving free and reduced lunch) enrolled. Some schools receive Title I funds and
some do not.
Each school has a School Community Council made up of school personnel
and community members (parent representative, community representative, teacher
representative, other staff representative, and Principal). The SCC meets quarterly
and is the venue for local participation. Each year, the principal creates the schools
Academic and Financial Plan or ACFIN Plan which sets the academic goals and
budget for the year. The ACFIN Plan is presented to the SCC each year, approved,
and then reviewed periodically and can be adjusted. The needs of the students,
largely determines the amount of money allocated to the schools (there are other
funds, but the majority of the discretionary funds at schools is based on the WSF).
Once the ACFIN plan is approved, the school is responsible for carrying out the
ACFIN plan.
Local districts rely on the HBOE to create policy and then the HDOE to
create the regulations for carrying out the policy. Schools and districts are then
responsible for policy implementation. The local area districts provide support and
clarification of policies, usually at the guidance of the state.
Therefore, the state is the Local Education Agency or LEA (in most states,
the LEA is the local school district and not the state school district); the district is the
107
middle man that carries the message from the state to the schools, and the principal
has the discretion of spending the money once the budget is approved by the SCC.
According to interviews, the state and local districts are not monitoring the middle
school promotion policy and it does not know its impact or what schools are doing to
carry it out. Furthermore, implementing the promotion policy and interventions adds
no money to the WSF and therefore schools are not given additional money for
interventions and safety nets. Those administrators interviewed expressed the desire
for more support district and state level support.
District or state level support could be given by (1) provide funding for
interventions for low performing students, extended learning times (after school,
Saturday school, summer school), and other safety nets such as alternative learning
centers; (2) professional development for schools and teachers to learn how to
differentiate instruction, interpret benchmarks, and enhance quality of instruction; (3)
clarify the policy and facilitate the appeal process; (4) monitor the policies
effectiveness; and (5) create measures that will help the policy be more effective
such as consistent curriculum in elementary schools, make sure students in
elementary are prepared by ending social promotion in elementary school, setting a
more effective criteria and intervention process, and standardizing the policy and its
practices.
According to the literature, if schools are going to be serious about ending
social promotion, policy officials need to “understand the up front costs of
implementing and sustaining” the policies it creates (McCombs, Kirby, and Mariano,
108
2009, p. xiv). As stated earlier, according to the interviewees, neither the district nor
the state is allocating more funds to help with policy implementation and/or
interventions.
If the state is going to seriously do away with social promotion and also the
need for retention, then the state and local districts must take a more active role in
carrying out the promotion and retention policies.
The state and local districts could also provide professional development to
help schools understand and interpret the benchmarks and the promotion policy
(McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano, 2009; Marsh et al., 2009). According to those
interviewed, they knew the policy and its goals, but they also shared that the district
and state level personnel had not given any training with regards to carrying it out.
By training school personnel with large numbers of low performing students, this
could help support schools and increase the skill levels of the low performing
students.
For policies to be effective, clear goals and tools are essential (McLaughlin,
2006). Furthermore, clear procedures and standards of practice are also essential for
effective implementation. To help the implementation of the Hawaii middle school
promotion policy, schools need more support from the state and district personnel.

What Do the Findings Mean?
Though the goals of the policy are not stated, the perceived goals are: to
increase middle/intermediate school student achievement and to make sure students
109
are academically prepared for high school level work. The tool to enforce this policy
is retention of students. But, with the frequency of social promotion in elementary
schools, the middle/intermediate schools would be too burdened with over crowding
if the middle school promotion policy was carried out with fidelity. Furthermore, the
support in way of funding, systematic standards of practice, monitoring, and
incentives from the district and state level is little to none; Therefore, because of
these factors, the de facto practice in middle/intermediate schools has been: help the
students as much as possible, given the limited resources and time, but in the end, if
the students have tried their best and worked hard (or in some cases not worked hard)
they will be socially promoted regardless of their skill level.
Therefore, the policy is:
1. Not being implemented as intended;
2. Not helping students be prepared for ninth grade level work;
3. Not helping cut down on ninth grade retention.
This results in a failed policy. Based on my findings and that of other
research, the policy would likely be more effective if the goals, targets, and tools
were changed.
In summary, as described above, the Middle Level Education Promotion
Policy has not been effective in its current implementation. The challenges to
effective policy implementation are: Misaligned targets, tools, and goals; a lack of
systematic standards of practice and procedures; lack of funding, support, and
monitoring from state and district personnel; and lack of interventions for students
110
who are retained or were promoted, but lack the skills to be successful at the next
grade.
111
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
To compete in the global economy, high school graduates need to be college
and career ready. Current and future jobs in the United States require a higher
education than a high school diploma. Hawaii is no different. The number of jobs
available for jobseekers with a high school diploma or less is dwindling. Like many
other states, Hawaii has a high number of students dropping out of high school. Of
those who do attend college, only 12 actually graduate within six years. To help cut
down on high school dropouts and ninth grade retention as well as ensure Hawaii’s
graduates are college and career ready, the Hawaii Board of Education created the
Middle Level Promotion Policy. The goals of this policy are to make sure students
who are promoted from a middle or intermediate school are academically prepared
for high school level work. This study explored how the Hawaii Middle Level
Promotion Policy was being implemented at the school level.
For this project, this researcher interviewed middle/intermediate school
administrators, eighth grade math teachers, high school administrators, and ninth
grade math teachers. This study was strictly a qualitative summative evaluation and
sought the opinions and perceptions of those interviewed. The generalizabilty of this
study is limited due to the number of participants and the time constraint of
completing the dissertation requirements of a Doctorate of Education degree. It can
112
be considered a snapshot of its implementation and how it is perceived by some
school officials at both the middle/intermediate and high school levels. A more
detailed summative evaluation study commissioned by the institution itself, with full
access and unlimited time, may find differing results. However, it seems like
perceptions of how the policy was implemented, might at least, in part, have real
consequences.
The method of data collection for this study was through document analysis,
data from the Hawaii Department of Education, and interviews. This researcher
conducted 13 interviews using a standardized open-ended interview format (Patton,
2002). Some questions were followed up with clarifying questions that were
unscripted. Different interview protocols were used for each designated group
(eighth grade math teachers; ninth grade math teachers; middle/intermediate
administrator; or high school administrator); however, many of the questions were
similar or the same. The data from the interviews were analyzed and triangulated
between high and low performing middle/intermediate schools, and their feeder
schools.
To triangulate the interviews, I compared the answers from each eighth grade
teacher, of whom there were three; with the interviews of the middle/intermediate
school administrators, of whom there were four; with the interviews of the ninth
grade teachers, of whom there were three; with the answers of the high school
administrators, of whom there were three. I further compared the individual answers
of each person with the answers in the group in which they belonged (comparing all
113
eighth grade teachers’ answers with each other, all ninth grade teachers’ answers
with each other, and so on). Considering these comparisons, I looked for similarities,
differences, and emerging themes.

Conclusions
From the analysis, six main themes emerged. The first theme is that the
teachers and administrators knew about the policy and could deduct the goals of the
policy. Both teachers and administrators knew about the policy and stated two main
goals of the policy: raise student achievement and make sure students are
academically prepared before moving to high school.
The second theme is the policy is not achieving some of its goals, in the sense
that students are still being passed up to ninth grade who do not know basic math
skills such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, understanding fractions,
understanding integers, etc. Also, according to the feeder schools, ninth grade
retentions have not changed since the policy has been implemented. One ninth grade
teacher of a low performing feeder school stated that roughly 30%-40% of the
students passed on to ninth grade are well below proficiency. Another ninth grade
teacher estimated that only about 20% of the students coming to ninth grade are
really prepared for algebra I. It is these unprepared students who will end up failing
ninth grade. One high school administrator that receives students from a higher
performing middle/intermediate school put the number at 1/3rd that would end up
repeating high school algebra I or geometry. Beginning 2010-2011 school year, for
114
the voluntary Board of Education Recognition Diploma, students will need to pass
Algebra I.
Third, from the interviews, it seems the mechanisms (tools and targets) used
to carry out the policy are not aligned with the policy’s goals (Loeb & McEwan,
2006). The enforcement tool for the middle school promotion policy is: students
must pass the four content areas and if they don’t, they are retained. The teachers are
responsible for enforcement. Teachers need to ensure students are academically
prepared before they “pass” the students.
Due to the subjectivity in the established criteria (teacher’s judgment of the
student’s ability to perform benchmarks), teachers are inconsistent in
implementing/enforcing the policy. Many teachers vary in their understanding and
interpretation of the benchmarks and what student outcomes should look like. In
addition to the inconsistencies in interpreting the benchmarks, teachers are also
inconsistent in grading. Many of the teachers’ grading policies are not strictly
standards-based, but behavior and skill performance are interlaced with behaviors,
which surfaced as a more determining factor for promotion. This leads to grade
inflation and students being passed because of effort and not skill level. In addition,
teacher beliefs about retention may interfere with implementation as well.
The fourth theme is that students are coming into middle/intermediate school
behind. This could be due to the practice of social promotion in elementary school or
the lack of math instruction/teaching to mastery in elementary school. Social
promotion in elementary school might be due to elementary teachers having a
115
different philosophy about retention than do secondary teachers. Perceptions of those
interviewed is that when elementary students arrive at middle/intermediate school
the students are used to being promoted no matter how much they know. This proves
to be problematic, since students are used to being promoted, some do not work hard
to acquire the skills needed to perform higher level math.
Because students come from elementary so far behind, the
middle/intermediate schools find ways to “push” the students through. One practice
is to give a student a D. From the interviews, the D represents a grade that is below
proficiency levels or approaching proficiency levels. And, even though most eighth
grade teachers and middle/intermediate administrators believed a D was below
reasonable proficiency levels, they still awarded students D’s allowing students to
pass. One reason for this, may be due to potential overcrowding of
middle/intermediate schools. Another reason may be the conflict between personal
philosophy about retention and the policy’s philosophy. The potential overcrowding
of low performing students is a disincentive to schools, especially the low
performing schools.
The fifth theme is that there is no district or state level support to help
implement the policy; schools are left to help the poor performing students by
themselves, and there is not enough resources and/or supports at the school level to
implement the policy with 100% effectiveness. School level personnel interviewed
expressed frustration at the lack of district and state involvement in policy
implementation. They further expressed a desire for clarification and professional
116
development regarding the policy and its implementation as well as a desire for more
funding. Funding for safety nets, credit recovery, and interventions is a problem,
because the district and/or state does not give additional funding for schools to carry
out the policy. Safety nets are systematic approaches for struggling students and
students who have failed. Safety nets could be tutoring or extended learning
opportunities (after school or during summer) to gain skills previously taught, but not
mastered; safety nets could also be summer school and other opportunities for
students who failed classes or have been retained. Safety nets could be for students
who have skill gaps and would be in addition to the regular course load. If schools
hold students back or create interventions and safety nets for students, they have to
use their own funds. This becomes a disincentive to implement the policy due to the
fact that schools have limited resources. Consequently, much of the burden of policy
implementation is placed on the schools and more specifically the classroom teacher,
with no help or accountability from the state or district. (This researcher did not find
any district and/or state level monitoring of the policy, and so it might be hard for
district and state level personnel to know how the policy is being carried out and its
effectiveness.)
Since students come so far behind from elementary school and the district
doesn’t fund the interventions for the low performing schools, the sixth theme is that
credit recovery is the intervention used for students who do not pass. The philosophy
behind credit recovery is to “find a way” to get the student the credit and move them
forward. Administrators talked about finding ways for students to get the credit they
117
need so they can move up. Many of the credit recovery options are shorter courses
with modified curriculum. Credit recovery programs have been computer based
programs, correspondence courses, or summer school programs, many of which are
not taught by highly qualified teachers. Some credit recovery opportunities
mentioned were correspondence courses, summer school, E2020 and Nova Net.
Nova Net and E2020 are computer based programs which are computer based with
video teachers and video examples. If students can get the credit without being
taught by a highly qualified teacher, then what does that say about the need for a
teacher? However, one eighth grade teacher interviewed stated that she didn’t know
of a student being held back due to lack of skills; she said that students are usually
held back because of lack of effort. This comment reflects that teachers may be
basing promotion on behaviors and effort and not skills which may contribute to the
ninth grade math teachers and administrators reported frustration of unprepared
students.
These six themes give us a snapshot into the middle school promotion
policy’s implementation. For the next section, I would like to look more in depth into
the recommendations and the belief versus practicality; alignment and accountability
tools; and promotion based on academic performance versus behavior and effort.

Recommendations
The main purpose of this study was to look at how the Hawaii Middle Grade
Promotion Policy was being implemented at the school level and if it was achieving
118
its goals. This study’s conclusions are that the policy is not being implemented as the
policy makers intended and it is not achieving its goals. The implications of this are
that either (1) the policy can continue as status quo; (2) the policy can be revamped
to include aligned goals, targets and tools; or (3) the promotion policy in Hawaii can
be scrapped all together and their will be no end to social promotion. The
recommendations section of this study will address the policy makers and stake
holders in hope that Hawaii truly does want to end social promotion.
According to the literature review, rigorous curriculum is strongly correlated
with college completion (Adelman, 1999, 2006; ACT, 2005; ACT, 2004; Warburton,
Burgarin, & Nunez, 2001). A rigorous curriculum has been more of a predictor of
whether or not someone will complete college than race or ethnicity, gender, or
socioeconomic status (Adelman, 2006; Alexander and Pallas 1984; Alexander,
Riordan, Fennessey, & Pallas, 1982; ACT, 2005; ACT, 2004; Warburton, Burgarin,
& Nunez, 2001; Martinez and Klopett, 2005; Kirst and Venezia, 2004). Rigor has
been studied and identified in several ways. First, rigor has been interpreted as
increasing the number of required courses (Warburton, Bugarin, & Nunez, 2001).
For others, rigor has been identified as the types of courses and/or a combination of
courses such as college preparatory versus vocational also known as “track” classes
(Alexander and Pallas, 1984) or a mixture of math, science, music, literature, and
language classes (Heck, Price, & Thomas, 2004; Horn and Kojaku, 2001).
Additional research states that increasing the number of courses or type of courses is
not enough: rigor is the quality and intensity (difficulty) of the actual courses that
119
matter which could be specific higher level courses such as physics and pre-calculus
(Adelman 1999, 2006; Teitelbaum, 2003). Adelman (1999, 2006) and Teitelbaum
(2003) claim that increasing the number of courses or mixture of courses do not
ensure rigor; according to them, rigor comes from the content and teacher
effectiveness.
Furthermore, math curriculum and pacing needs to move slower, with more
emphasis on digging deeper and more rigor (Schmidt, Houang, & Cogan, 2002;
Ginsberg et al., 2005); when comparing countries that outperform the United States
in math, the countries that move slower in the early years of math development, but
go more in-depth are outperforming US students. The curriculum in US schools
introduce math concepts earlier than most countries and repeat every year, but the
students do not go far enough in-depth and do not master basic concepts and skills.
Students in the United States continue year after year to skim the surface of math
concepts, covering more concepts, but with less emphasis on deep understanding and
skill development. The lack of basic skills results in lagging performance in higher
level math (Schmidt, Houang, & Cogan, 2002; Ginsberg et al., 2005).
Hawaii’s middle grade promotion policy is built around the premise that
rigorous curriculum is important and defines rigor as, “offering educational
experiences of increasing difficulty and complexity” (Policy 4500). It further states:
If middle level students are to be adequately prepared for the academic rigor
of high school and beyond they must continue to achieve in the core content
areas. Therefore, all students in grades six, seven and eight shall be required
to take language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Students must
120
receive a passing grade and receive an academic unit for each of these core
content courses in order to be promoted to the next grade level (Policy 4502).

Hawaii’s policy is also built on the principle that rigor is “difficult and
complex” education and will be demonstrated in four areas: language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies. But, taking the classes is not enough
(Teitelbaum, 2003), students must learn the content and skills before being passed
on. Hawaii’s promotion policy is missing this connection: not all students are
actually learning the skills before being promoted. Students are being exposed to the
curriculum, but students are not mastering the skills needed.
The state uses retention and fear of retention as bases for motivating students
to do well and pass. Teachers are responsible for enforcing the policy by holding
those students back who are not performing as they should. This is inconsistent due
to teachers differ in their interpretation and understanding of the grade level
benchmarks and there is no systematic approach to determine students abilities based
on their performance of grade level benchmarks.
The tools used with the policy are misaligned (Loeb and McEwan, 2006)
with the goals of the policy. There are no real positive consequences or incentives for
schools to implement the policy; there are only negative consequences for those
schools that do. No entity (district or state) is holding schools accountable to
implementation and there is no incentive for schools that do hold students back such
as funding for interventions, extended learning opportunities, and credit recovery
efforts. One negative consequence is retention, as it relates to AYP (schools with
121
high retention rates are looked at negatively as part of the federally funded No Child
Left Behind policy); another negative consequence is that schools that do hold
students back are left to fund the interventions, extended learning opportunities, and
credit recovery efforts on there own. Furthermore, schools that retain poor
performing students risk being over crowded and even worse, may be subjected to
potential behavior problems. The lower performing schools reported having 15 and
16 year olds in seventh and eighth grade. What's more, at-risk students may have
attendance and behavior issues which lead to consecutive retentions.
Another consideration is that retention may go against a teacher’s core
philosophy which may keep them from implementing the policy. The interviews
revealed that all the eighth grade teachers believed in retention and have or would
hold students back. But, they still use the practice of giving D’s even when they felt
that D’s were not representative of proficiency or approaching proficiency. This
means that though they believed in retention their beliefs and practices are not
consistent in their implementation of the policy.
Part of the problem may be due to a misaligned philosophy between the
teachers (micro level) and the policy makers (macro level). The teachers, especially
in the elementary level, may not believe in retention and therefore socially promote
the students. This puts them in direct conflict with the policy makers and the
established goals. When the students make it to middle levels of sixth through eighth
grade (the target grades of the Middle Level Promotion Policy) the students are too
far behind to enforce the policy effectively. The practical problem with the policy
122
may be that the school will be punished if large numbers of students are retained
such as overcrowding of the school, negative view of the teacher due to large
numbers of retained students, and the consequences of NCLB and retention. But,
also at play are the middle/intermediate schools teachers’ beliefs. As stated above,
they find ways to pass students who are not proficient, therefore, they may not
believe wholeheartedly in the philosophy of the policy. The two forces in conflict are
belief and practicality.
Another problem that may be contributing to the policy’s implementation
failures is the teachers focus on behavior rather then skills. The interviews revealed
that the eighth grade teachers focused on behavior and stated that behavior may be
more of a contributing factor of retention than skill levels. When talking of retention,
the eighth grade teachers stated that behaviors such as attendance, failure to do work,
and lack of effort were what contributed to students being retained rather than a
student’s skill level. This may be another reason why students who lack the skills for
high school level work are being passed. For example, students with poor skills, but
work hard may be allowed to pass because they tried hard. This may be represented
in the number of D’s teachers give students. The letter grade of a D is a passing
grade, but as the interviewees commented, not a grade representing a level or
proficiency ready for the next level. This means the tools (the teachers) may be
focused on the wrong criteria for promotion.
Since these practices are occurring and students, who lack the needed skills
for high school level math, are pushed forward, the tools, targets and goals seem to
123
be misaligned. As it appears, the targets are the students, the tools are that every
students needs to take and pass the four core subjects of English, math, science and
social studies and this is based on the teachers, their grading, and retention; while the
goals are passing grades that should represent proficiency levels worthy of being
moved to the next level. The problem is that the tools (the teachers, their grading,
and retention) are not implementing the policy effectively.
The policy makers have targeted the students, but the accountability tools are
aimed at the teachers and schools, resulting in an ineffective policy.
One of the accountability tools for the policy is the teachers; however, the
teachers, as shown through the interviews, are not consistent in carrying out the
policy. They differ in their understanding and interpretation of the benchmarks and
standards; they also differ in their philosophy and beliefs about retention; and, they
differ in their grading, which is supposed to represent a standard or level of
proficiency. This has resulted in a policy breakdown.
Another accountability tool used for this policy is retention. In this policy, the
retention is aimed at the students, but the teachers are the enforcers of this tool.
Again, the tool alignment should directly impact the students, taking out the
subjectivity of the teachers, their beliefs, and their inconsistencies.
According to McDonnell and Elmore (1987) policy design and the
accountability tools strongly influence policy implementation. Policies are created
and designed to solve a particular problem (McLaughlin, 2006). Therefore, it is
indicative to get the problem right and then figure out what the solutions to the
124
problem are. If the goals, targets, and tools are misaligned then the policy will be
ineffective and not implemented properly, because the actors will not implement the
policy. Making sure the policy has the right means and ends is the most important
part of policy design (McLaughlin, 2006).
For better implementation, the policy makers could readjust the goals, target,
and tools (Loeb and McEwan, 2006). New goals, targets, and tools that are based
on:
1. Identifying at-risk students early (elementary school or as soon as
possible).
2. Providing timely and targeted prescribed interventions based on the needs
of the individual child (skills based or behavior based) before retention is
used as an intervention.
3. Establish a K-8 to promotion policy aimed at ending social promotion and
linked to students’ skill levels, especially in the elementary grades before
they get to middle school.
4. Link the policy to a test-based system for consistency and an appeal
process that is monitored by district and state personnel; removing the
subjectivity of the teachers’ interpretations.
5. Providing adequate funding and monitoring from the district and state
level.
Policy makers could consider an integrated promotion policy between K-8
(Jacob, Stone, & Roderick, 2004; McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano, 2009; Allensworth,
125
2004). The most researched promotion policies have established “gate-keeping”
grades, usually grades three, five, and eight. In these gate-keeping grades, students
are required to perform a predetermined criteria of skills before being promoted
(Marsh et al., 2006; McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano 2009; Allensworth, 2004;
Roderick and Nagaoka, 2005; Greene and Winters 2004, 2007). The practice of
social promotion in the Hawaii’s elementary schools has compromised the
implementation of the middle school promotion policy. Since there is not a
comprehensive plan from K-8, the goals of the promotion policy are not being met.
The goals of the policy are not being met for the reason that the goals of the
promotion policy are out of sync at the micro and macro level (Loeb and McEwan,
2006). The Hawaii Board of Education (macro level) established the policy, but the
targets (students) are socially promoted in elementary burdening the policy
implementation (micro level). This social promotion could be a result of the belief of
elementary teachers that retention is detrimental. The practice of social promotion at
the elementary level undermines the implementation of the middle school promotion
policy. Adjusting the tools can alleviate this problem.
The main problem is that the accountability tools (the teachers, their grading,
and retention) are inconsistently implemented/enforced. This results in students
being passed without attaining or demonstrating the skills needed for the next level.
According to Loeb and McEwan (2006) when there is a misalignment of the goals,
the policy tools need to be used to offset the misalignment to influence individual
and group motivation and actions.
126
A test-based promotion system would improve the misalignment of the goals
and targets. A test-based system would allow for more objectivity. For this to
happen, the test would need to be criterion referenced (skills based), and it could be
used to identify at-risk students. This would eliminate the variability of teacher
understanding of proficiency and approaching proficiency levels and “de facto”
social promotion.
Taking from other successful promotion policies, students could be promoted
in gate keeping grades and judged on basic skills of reading, writing, and math. One
positive is that Hawaii has a measuring tool in place already, the Hawaii State
Assessment (HSA). One example could be that students who take the HSA in third
grade, but receive a Well Below score start receiving summer interventions between
third and fourth grade and extended learning times throughout the fourth grade year
and their score on the fourth grade HSA will determine the level of interventions in
fifth grade: sustained interventions, increased interventions, or progress monitoring.
A team should meet to determine the bases of the lack of progress (skills based,
behavior based, etc) and determine the interventions needed based on the HSA error
analysis and other diagnostic tests. Those who increase their score by the end of
fourth grade to Approaching Proficiency or higher may be moved to progress
monitoring, while those who do the same or worse receive sustained interventions or
increased interventions. Given this procedure, students will have 2 years of
interventions (summer, all of fourth grade and 2/3rds of fifth grade) to improve,
before retention is considered. If a student is still scoring Well Below by the end of
127
fifth grade, then that student could be a candidate for retention. Other interventions
such as special education could be considered as well. Given the amount of data
collected through the interventions, this should help with the special education
eligibility process and special education students would still benefit from the
described interventions as well. The process could continue in sixth and eighth
grade. The sixth grade HSA could be the identifier of students who need
interventions, while seventh and eighth grade would be the intervention years.
Promotion out of eighth grade could be based on test scores, grades, and attendance
(much like the Chicago Public Schools Promotion Policy).
One problem with the HSA is that it allows students to use calculators in
certain grades to do calculations. Compared to other countries, US fourth graders use
calculators more than most other countries and lack the mastery of basic math skills
(Ginsberg et al., 2005). Hawaii needs students to have basic math calculation skills,
as pointed out by the math teachers interviewed. Therefore, the HSA might
discontinue the use of calculators for elementary students and on tests of basic skills.
The policy might consider linking interventions and safety nets such as
extended learning opportunities (summer school and after school tutoring), and an
appeal process for students identified as at-risk for retention or in need of retention
(McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano, 2009; Marsh et al., 2009; Holmes, 1989).
Finally, the policy implementation needs to have district and state level
monitoring, support, and funding for schools. According to Berman and McLaughlin
(1978) if the district leaders, and in this instance the state, do not lead policy
128
implementation or support implementation, then failure is almost certain. Support
from the state and district level could be: professional development and training,
viewing others implement the policy, and micro-level decision making opportunities.
Additionally, effective strategies include feedback that is timely, as well as building
a broad base of support for the policy. State and district level support will help
implementation consistency and quality (McCombs, Kirby, & Mariano, 2009; Marsh
et al., 2009).
Included in the district and state level support should be professional
development for teachers and administrators to understand and implement the policy.
The professional development could focus on helping teachers understand and
interpret the benchmarks and standards as well as consistently implement the policy.
The professional development could also focus on helping teachers change/adjust
their beliefs about retention.
Implementing these strategies and supports will help students be more
prepared for high school level work and cut down on ninth grade retention and high
school dropouts (Greene and Winters, 2007; Jacob and Lefgren, 2009). If the state is
unwilling to connect the policy to a test-based system, then professional
development could be strengthened to help standardize understanding of the policy
and implementation; also, social promotion in the elementary levels could be
addressed; and most important of all, struggling students should be provided intense
interventions and monitoring to make sure they are not just passed forward without
learning the needed skills. These strategies may help cut down on ninth grade
129
retention and along with other supports, it could help more students attend and
complete college (Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey, 1997; McCombs, Kirby, &
Mariano, 2009).
The Hawaii Middle Level Promotion Policy, Policy 4502 was created by the
Hawaii Board of Education with good intentions: the desire to see middle level
education meaningful and rigorous so students are prepared for high school level
work. The factors that have led to the policy not being effective have been outlined
in this study. Considering the failures of the policy’s implementation, it is important
to look at what lessons can be learned about policy creation and implementation.
First, the HBOE assumed teachers would be uniformed in grading and would believe
in the philosophy of the policy. It did not create any mechanisms in the policy to
address teachers’ beliefs and practices. Furthermore, the policy was aimed at the
students, but the teachers and schools ended up being the focus. Additionally, the
HBOE created a policy in isolation; the fact that there is no specific policy for
elementary or high school promotion (there is policy 4500 which is the broad
promotion policy), is problematic. The HBOE did not consider the promotional
practices in the elementary levels and the effects it would have on
middle/intermediate schools. If they did, they expected the middle/intermediate
schools to carry the burden of educating and retaining unprepared students.
Currently, the failures in policy implementation K-8 have resulted in the high
schools baring the burden to make sure graduates have the skills needed for college
and career readiness. This may be why Hawaii averages only about 80% of its
130
freshman finishing in four years and why some schools graduate less than 60% in
four years (Hawaii DOE, 2008a).

Recommendations for Future Study
As stated earlier, this study is limited due to the time limit and limited
number of participants. For future study, a more evaluative study might be
conducted; one that uses mixed methods with survey and interview data. The data
should be more comprehensive in determining how the policy is being implemented
across the state, as this study was limited to the Island of Oahu, four
middle/intermediate schools, and four feeder high schools. With additional data,
further analysis could be given to the types of interventions some schools have
implemented which could be duplicated at other campuses.
For future studies a quasi-experiment could be designed in which different
elements are put into practice in various ways. For example, a few schools could
implement a test-based system connected to an intervention system where students
who score low are placed in interventions. Some of the interventions could be after
school, some could be on Saturdays or a combination of in school and out of school;
each school who has struggling students will retain them. Other schools could,
instead of implementing a test-based system, focus on professional development for
teachers to make them more unified and consistent in their interpretation of the
benchmarks and standards. These schools could implement interventions as well
with all students being passed forward; those students who continue to struggle can
131
be retained. And then there could be a system in which there is a test-based system
and a teacher based system with interventions, but no retention. Analyzing these
various implementation designs, researchers could study the effects of each design to
determine which is best for the students.

Conclusion
Many middle/intermediate schools, especially low performing schools, are
faced with a difficult challenge: making sure their students are academically
prepared before they move to the high school level. With the practice of social
promotion in the elementary schools and the limited amount of time and resources at
the middle/intermediate level, the Hawaii Middle Grade Promotion Policy is not
having the impact as the policy makers intended. Low performing students are still
being passed on to high school. This error might be connected to a lack of quality of
instruction or teacher effectiveness in the classroom. Clearly the lack of an effective,
system wide quality assurance of instruction, assessment, and student support
systems with interventions have played, at least in part, a role of the ineffective
implementation of Policy 4502. Promotion policies aimed at ending social
promotion are hard to implement unless they are clearly defined, systematic, and
backed by teacher, administrator, and parent beliefs. Furthermore, it seems that
interventions that focus on remediation and improved instruction must accompany
efforts aimed at curbing social promotion.
132
However, it is also not just the schools fault. Much of the problem might be
the ineffective tools associated with this policy. If policy makers really want to do
away with social promotion and make sure Hawaii’s students are college and career
ready by the time they graduate high school, they might revamp this policy. The new
policy could be based on:
1. Identifying at-risk students early.
2. Providing timely and targeted prescribed interventions based on the needs
of the individual child (skills based or behavior based) before retention is
used as an intervention.
3. Establish a K-8 to promotion policy aimed at ending social promotion and
linked to students’ skill levels.
4. Link the policy to a test-based system for consistency and an appeal
process that is monitored by district and state personnel; removing the
subjectivity of the teachers’ interpretations.
5. Providing adequate funding and monitoring from the district and state
level.
While a new policy might take some time, there are some practical steps
middle/intermediate schools can do in the meantime. First, schools can dialogue
amongst other middle/intermediate schools to figure out a more systematic and
consistent way to implement the policy. Horizontal articulations facilitated by the
district and/or state can help support the schools. Secondly, schools can start vertical
articulation with their feeder elementary schools as to what skills students are
133
lacking when they come up. They can also articulate with the high schools they feed
into, to identify where the students are displaying gaps when they are promoted. In
addition to vertical and horizontal articulations, district and state led professional
development on the practices of the policy and its implementation may help as well.
And finally, schools can start their own Response to Intervention (RTI) programs
where they are identifying struggling students based on skills or behaviors and
support them with school based interventions such as extended learning
opportunities and other in-school and out-of-school supports. Implementing these
few ideas might help cut down the number of students being pushed forward who are
not ready as well as cut down on the number of ninth grade retentions and increase
the number of students graduating high school and college on-time.
134
REFERENCES

Achieve (2008) Closing the expectations gap: an annual 50-state progress report on
the alignment of high school policies with the demands of college and
careers. Retrieved January 2009 from http://www.achieve.org/files/50-state-
2008-final02-25-08.pdf

ACT (2004). Crises at the core: Preparing all students for college and work.
Retrieved January 3, 2009 from
www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/crisis_report.pdf.

ACT (2005) On course for success: a close look at selected high school courses that
prepare all students for college. Accessed on January 1, 2009 from:
http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/reports/success.html

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance
patterns and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington DC: U.S. Department
of Education.

Adelman, C. (2000). Participation in Outreach Programs Prior to High School
Graduation: Socioeconomic Status by Race. Paper presented at the
ConnectED Conference, San Diego, CA, January 10.

Adelman, C. (2006) The Toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high
school through college. Washington DC: US Department of Education.

Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D. & Dauber, S. (1994). On the success of failure: a
reassessment of the effects of retention in the primary grades. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D. & Horsey, C.S. (1997). From first grade forward:
Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 87-
107.

Alexander, K.L., Holupka, S., & Pallas, A.M. (1987). Social background and
academic determinants of two-year versus four-year college attendance:
Evidence from two cohorts a decade apart. American Journal of Education,
96 (1), 56-80.

135
Alexander, K.L., & Pallas, A.M. (1984). Curriculum reform and school performance:
An evaluation of the "New Basics." American Journal of Education; 92 (4);
391-420.

Allensworth, E (2004). Ending social promotion: Dropout rates in Chicago after
implementation of the eighth grade promotion gate. Retrieved on January
2009 from: http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php.

Alspaugh, J.W. (1998). Achievement Loss Associated with the Transition to Middle
School and High School. Journal of Educational Research, 92 (1) p20-25
Sep-Oct 1998.

American Federation of Teachers (1997). Passing on failure: District promotion
policies and practices. Retrieved on March 2009 from:
http://archive.aft.org/teachers/pubs-reports/saa.htm.

Bailey, T. & Karp, M. (November 2003). Promoting college access and success: A
review of credit-based transition programs. Community College Research
Center Teachers College/Columbia University; Office of Vocational and
Adult Education, US Department of Education.

Bali, V.A., Anagnostopoulos, D., & Roberts, R. (2005). Toward a political
explanation of grade retention. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
27(2), 133–155.

Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Barone, C., Aguirre-Deandreis, A.I., & Trickett, E.J. (1991). Mean-ends problem-
solving skills, life stress, and social support as mediators of adjustment in the
normative transition to high school. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 19(2), 207-225.

Barth, P. (2003). A common core curriculum for the all: Aiming high for other
people’s children. Thinking K-16. 7(1), 2-33. Washington D.C.: The
Education Trust.

Bergin, D., Cooks, C., & Bergin, C. (2007). Effects of a college access program for
youth underrepresented in higher education: A randomized experiment.
Research in Higher Edcuation. 48(6).

Berman, P. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1978). The Rand change agent study, Vols. 1-8.
Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.

136
Bowen, W.J. & Bok, D. (Fall 1998). Why race-conscious admissions make sense.
College Board Review, n186 8-11,29.

Brewer, D.J., Hentschke, G.C., & Eide, E.R. (2008). The role of eceonomics in
education policy research. In Ladd, H.F. and Fiske, E.B. (eds.) Handbook of
Research in Education Finance and Policy. New York: Routledge, pp. 23-41.

Brookhart, S.M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCD:
Alexandria, VA.

Callan, P.M., Finney, J.E., Kirst, M.W., Usdan, M.D., & Venezia, A. (2006).
Claiming Common Ground: State Policymaking for Improving College
Readiness and Success. National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education. Downloaded on February 19, 2009 from:
www.stanford.edu/group/bridgeproject/publications.html

Carnevale, A.P., & Desrochers, D.M. (2003). Standards for What? The economic
roots of k-16 reform. Princton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.

Carroll, J.B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-
733.

Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA). (1998). National Study of
College Preparation Programs. Program Summary: Los Angeles.
Unpublished internet document.

Chavez, L. & Serna C. (1999). Access to A-F Courses and Racial Coposition of the
School. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association
Conference, Montreal, Canada, April.

Cooper, R. & Huh, C. (2005). Academic aspiration of urban students during the
transition into high school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Cooper, R. & Jordan, W. (2003). Cultural issues in comprehensions school reform.
Urban Education, 38(4), 380-397.

Cooper, R. & Liou, D.D. (Oct-Nov 2007) The structure and culture of information
pathways: Rethinking opportunity to learn in urban high schools during the
ninth grade transition. High School Journal, p. 43 (14). Accessed on April 10,
2008 from:
http://wf2dnvr9.webfeat.org/FI6kJ168/url=http://find.galegroup.com/

137
Doyle, R.P. (1989). The resistance of conventional wisdom to research evidence:
The case of retention in grade. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(2), 215-220.

Epstein, J.L. & Maclver, D.J. (1990). Education in the middle grades: National
practices and trends. Columbus, Oh: National Middle School Association.

Ewell, P.T., Jones, D.M., & Kelly, P.J. (2003). Conceptualizing and Researching the
Educational Pipeline. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems.

Ewell, P. & Wellman, J. (2007) Enhancing Student Success in Education: summary
report of the NPEC initiative and national symposium on postsecondary
student success. National Postseconday Educaiton Cooperative (NPEC).

Fuhrman, S.H., Clune, W., & Elmore, R.F. (1988). Research on education reform:
Lessons on the implementation of policy. Teachers College Record, 90(2),
237-258.

Ginsburg, A., Cooke, G., Leinwand, S., Noell, J., & Pollock, E. (2005). Reassessing
U.S. international mathematics performance: New findings from the 2003
TIMSS and PISA. Washington, D.C.: American Institute for Research.

Girotto, J., & Peterson, P. (1999). Do hard courses and good grades enhance
cognitive skills? In Mayer, S. & Peterson, P (eds), Earning and learning:
How schools matter. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.

Gladieux, L. & Swail, W.S. (1998). Financial Aid is Not Enough: Improving the
Odds of College Success for Low-income Minority Students. Washington,
DC: The College Board.

Green, J.P. & Winters, M.A. (2004). An evaluation of Florida’s program to end
social promotion. Education Working Paper: Manhattan Institute. Retrieved
on May 2009 from:
http://epsl.asu.edu.libproxy.usc.edu/epru/ttdocuments/EPRU-0512-140-
OWI.pdf.

Greene, J.P. & Winters, M.A. (2005). Public high school graduation and college
readiness rates: 1991-2002. Manhattan Institute; Education Working Paper.
February 2005 (8).

Greene, J.P. & Winters, M.A. (2007). Revisiting grade retention: An evaluation of
florida's test-based promotion policy. Education Finance and Policy, 2(4),
319-340.
138
Grossman, J. & Garry, E. (1997). Mentoring-A proven delinquency prevention
strategy. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, April, Washington, DC: US Department of
Justice.

Grossman, J. & Tierney, J. (1998). Does mentoring work? An inpact study of the Big
Brothers Big Sisters program. Evaluation Review, 22, 403-426.

Harlow, C.W. (January 2003). Education and correctional populations. Bureau of
Justice Statistics Special Report; Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice. Retrieved on September 2007 from:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/education_prisons.pdf.

Hawaii Department of Education (2007). Promotion and retention regulations.
Hawaii Department of Education Memo dated 7/02/2007: Revised Promotion
and Retention Regulations, 4500.1. Retrieved from DOE Memos January
2009.

Hawaii Department of Education (2008a). 2008 Superintendent’s Annual Report.
Retrieved January 2009 from
http://arch.k12.hi.us/state/superintendent_report/sar2008.html

Hawaii Department of Education (2008b). School Status and Improvement Reports.
Retrieved on January 2009 from: http://arch.k12.hi.us/school/ssir/ssir.html#.

Haycock, K. (2003). Forward to carnevale and desrocher’s: Standards for what?: The
economic roots of k-16 reform. Princton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.

Heck, R., Price, C., & Thomas, C. (2004). Tracks as emergent structures: A network
analysis of student differentiation in a high school. American Journal of
Education, 110, 321-353.

Heller, R., Calderon, S. & Medrich, E. (2003). Academic Achievement in the middle
grades: what does the literature tell us. Southern Regional Education Board
downloaded from www.sreb.org

Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., & Darwin,
M. (2008). Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools: A practice
guide (NCEE #2008-4020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides.

139
Holmes, C.T. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research
studies. In L.A. Shepard & M.L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: research and
policies on retention (pp. 16-33). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.

Holmes, C.T., & Matthews, K.M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on
elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Reviews of
Educational Research, 54, 225-236.

Honig, M.I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation challnges and
opportunities for the field. In M.I. Honig (Ed.), New Directions in Education
Policy Implementation (1-23). New York: SUNY Press.

Horn, L. & Carroll, C.D. (1997). Confronting the Odds: Students at Risk and the
Pipeline to Higher Education. NCES 98-094. Washington, DC: US
Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

Horn, L. & Kojaku, L. (2001). High school academic curriculum and the persistence
path through college. [NCES 2001-183] Washington, D.C., Department of
Education National Center for Educational Statistics.

Hornbeck, D. & Salamon, L. (1991) Human capital and America’s future: An
economic strategy for the 90s. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

Jackson, J.A., Davis, G.A., Abeel, M., and Bordonaro, A. (2000). Turning points
2000: Educating adolescents in the 21
st
century. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Jackson, G. (1975). The research evidence on the effects of grade retention. Review
of Educational Research, 45, 243-272.

Jacob, B.A., & Lefgren, L. (2004). Remedial education and student achievement: A
regression-discontinuity analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics,
86(1), 226–244.

Jacob, B.A., & Lefgren, L. (2009). The Effect of Grade Retention on High School
Completion. CLOSUP Working Paper Series Number 12. Retrieved on
March 2009 from: http://closup.umich.edu.

Jacob, R.T., Stone, S., & Roderick, M. (2004). Ending social promotion: The
response of teachers and students. Consortium on Chicago School Research,
Retrieved on January 2009 from:
http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php.

140
Jimerson, S. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for
practice in the 21
st
century. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 420-437.

Jimerson, S., Carlson, E., Rotert, M., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L.A., (1997). A
prospective, longitudinal study of the correlates and consequences of early
grade retention. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 3-25.

Juvonen, J., Le, V., Kaganoff, T., Augustine, C., & Constant, L. (2004). Focus on the
wonder years: Challenges facing the American middle school. Santa Monica:
Rand Corporation.

Kahne, J. & Bailey, K. (1997). The Role of Social Capital in Youth Development:
The case of “I Have a Dream.” Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago,
College of Education.

Karweit, N.L. (1991). Repeating a grade: Time to grow or denial of opportunity
(Report No. 16). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for
Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Kirst, M.W. & Venezia, A. (2004) From high school to college: Improving
opportunities for success in postsecondary education. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., & Hayek, J. (2006). What Matters To
Student Success: A Review of the Literature. Commissioned Report for the
National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a
Dialog on Student Success. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative
(NPEC).

Kunjufu, J. (2002). Black Students, middle class teachers. African American Images.
Chicago.

Legters, N. (2000). Small learning communities meet school-to-work: Whole-school
restructuring for urban comprehensive high schools. In M.G. Sanders (ed),
Schoolong students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the
education of poor and minority adolescents (pp. 309-338). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum Associates, inc.

141
Legters, N., & Kerr, K (2001). Easing the transition to high school: An investigation
of reform practices to promote ninth grade success. Prepared for: Dropouts in
America: How severe is the problem? What do we know about intervention
and prevention? A forum convened by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University’s Graduate School of Education and Achieve, Inc. Cambridge,
Mass. Retrieved on January 4, 2009 from:
http://www.scusd.edu/com_office/FCPRO/legters.pdf

Loeb, S. & McEwan, P.J. (2006). An economic approach to education policy
implementation. In M. Honig (Ed.), New Directions in Education Policy
Implementation (169-186). New York: SUNY Press.

Long, B. & Riley, E. (2007). Financial aid: a broken bridge to college access?.
Harvard Educational Review; spring 2007, 77(1), p.39-63.

Lorence, J., Dworkin, A.G., Toenjes, L.A., & Hill, A.N. (2002). Grade retention and
social promotion in Texas, 1994-99: Academic achievement among
elementary school students. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 5, 13-67.

Lorence, J. & Dworkin, A.G. (2006) Elementary grade retention in Texas and
reading achievement among racial groups: 1994–2002. Review of Policy
Research, 23(5), 999-1033.

Marsh, J.E., Barney, H., Kirby, S.N., & Xia, N (2006). Ending social promotion in
grades K ‐8: Insights regarding policy implementation. Santa Monica: Rand
Corporation.

Marsh, J. E., Gershwin, D., Kirby, S. N., & Xia, N. (2009). Retaining students in
grade: Lessons learned regarding policy design and implementation. Santa
Monica: Rand Corporation.

Martinez, M. & Klopott, S. (2005) The Link between High School Reform and
College Access and Success for Low-Income and Minority Youth.
Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum and Pathways to College
Network. ISBN 1-887031-91-X Retrieved on January 4, 2009 from:
https://www.collegeaccess.org/NCAN/Uploads/2006012447HSReformColle
geAccessandSuccess.pdf

McCombs, J.S., Kirby, S.N., & Mariano, L.T. (eds) (2009). Ending social promotion
without leaving children behind. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.

McDonnell, L.M., & Elmore, R.F. (1987) Getting the job done: Alternative policy
instruments. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.
142
McLaughlin, M.W. (1991). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro
perspectives and micro realities. In R. Odden (Ed.), Education Policy
Implementation (143-155). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

McLaughlin, M.W. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned,
lingering questions and new opportunities. In M. Honig (Ed.), New
Directions in Education Policy Implementation (209-228). New York: SUNY
Press.

Mejorado, M. (1999). Puente: Creating a Model for Mentoring Chicano High School
Students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association
Conference, Montreal, Canada, April.

Mizelle, N.B. & Irvin, J.L. (2000). Transition from middle school into high school.
Middle School Journal, 31(5) p. 57-61 May 2000. downloaded on January 20,
2009 from:
http://www.nmsa.org/portals/0/pdf/publications/On_Target/transitioning_hs/t
ransitioning_hs_4.pdf

Nagaoka, J. & Roderick, M. (2004). Ending social promotion: The effects of
retention. Consortium on Chicago School Research, Retrieved on January
2009 from: http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (2007). The nations report card reading
2007: State snapshot report: Hawaii. Downloaded March 11, 2010 from:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (2009a). The nations report card math
2009: State snapshot report: Hawaii. Downloaded March 11, 2010 from:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (2009b). The nations report card math
2009: State snapshot report: Massachusetts. Downloaded March 11, 2010
from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/.

National Center for Education Statistics (August 2000). College quality and the
earnings of recent college graduates. US Department of Education (NCES
2000-043).

National Center for Education Statistics (2007) The condition of education in 2007
in brief. US Department of Education (NCES 2007-066).

143
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (2009). Student Pipeline
- Transition and Completion Rates from 9th Grade to College – 2006.
Retrieved February 2009 from:
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=72.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2004). Policy Alert: The
education pipeline: Big investments, big returns. Downloaded on January
2009 from: http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pa_transfers/.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2006). Measuring up: the
state report card on higher education. downloaded from:
http://measuringup.highereducation.org/

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2008). Measuring up: the
national report card on higher education. downloaded from:
http://measuringup.highereducation.org/

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for education reform; Washington D.C.: Author.

National Governors Association & Jobs for the Future. (2003). Ready for tomorrow:
Helping all students achieve secondary and postsecondary success.
Washington, DC: National Governors Association.

National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (September 2001). Paving the way to
postsecondary education: K-12 intervention programs for underrepresented
youth. Report of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Working
Group on Access to Postsecondary Education.

Natriello, G., Pallas, A., & Alexander, K. (1989). On the right track? Curriculum and
Academic achievement. Sociology of Education: 62(2), 109-118.

Newman, B.M., Myers, M.C., Newman, P.R., Lohman, B.J. & Smith, V.L. (2000).
The transition to high school for academically promising urban low-income
African American youth. Adolescence, 35(137), 45-66.

Niklason, L. (1984). Non-Promotion: A pseudoscientific solution. Psychology in the
Schools, 21, 485-499.

Niklason, L. (1987). Do certain groups of children profit from a grade retention?
Psyshology in the Schools, 24, 339-345.

144
Oaks, J., Rogers, J., Lipton, M. & Morrell, E. (2002). The social construction of
college access: confronting the technical, cultural, and political barriers to
low-income students of color. In W.G. Tierney and L.S. Hagedorn (Eds.),
Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students (pp.81-
104). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Ogbu, J. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational
Researcher. 21(5) accessed on October 4, 2007 from
http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/8/5

Overman, M. (1986). Student promotion and retention. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 609-
613.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2): A third
decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3
rd
ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pennington, H. (October 2006). Expanding learning time in high schools. Center for
American Progress. Accessed on May 30, 2008 from:
www.americanprogress.org/publications

Plank, S.B., & Jordon, W.J. (2001). Effects of information, guidance, and actions on
post-secondary destinations: a study of talent loss. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(4), 947-979.

Planty, M. & Provasnik, S. (June 2007). High school coursetaking: findings from the
condition of education. National Center for Educational Statistics. US
Department of Education (NCES 2007-065).

Policy 4500 (1996). Student Promotion Policy. Retrieved January 2009 from:
http://lilinote.k12.hi.us/STATE/BOE/POL1.NSF

Policy 4502 (2002, 2005). Middle Grade Promotion Policy. Retrieved January 2009
from: http://lilinote.k12.hi.us/STATE/BOE/POL1.NSF

Reyes, O., Gillock, K.L., Kobus, K., & Sanchez, B. (2000). A longitudinal
examination of the transition in to senior high school for adolescents from
urban low-income status and predominantly minority backgrounds. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 28(4), 519-544.

145
Roderick, M. (1984). Grade Retention and School Dropout: Investigating the
Association. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4). 729-759.

Roderick, M., Engel, M., & Nagaoka, J. (2003). Ending social promotion: Results
from summer bridge. Consortium on Chicago School Research, Retrieved on
January 2009 from: http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php.

Roderick, M. & Nagaoka, J. (2005). Retention under Chicago’s high-stakes testing
program: Helpful, harmful, or harmless? Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 27(4), 309–340.

Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., & Allensworth, E. (2006). From high school to the
future: A first look at Chicago public school graduates’ college enrollment,
college preparation, and graduation from four-year colleges. Consortium on
Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. Retrieved January
2009 from: www.consortium-chicago.org.

Rogers A., & Taylor, A. (1997). Intergenerational mentoring: A viable strategy for
meeting the needs of vulnerable youth. Journal of Gerontological Social
Work, 28 125-140.

Rose, J.S., Medway, F., Cantrell, V.L., & Marus, S.H. (1983). A fresh look at the
retention-promotion controversy. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 201-211.

Sabatier, P. & Mazmanian, D. (1979). The conditions of effective implementation: A
guide to accomplishing policy objectives. Policy Analysis, 5(5), 481-504.

Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. (1986). Synthesis of research on school readiness and
kindergarten retention. Educational Leadership, 44, 78-86.

Smith, M.L., & Shepard, L.A. (1987). What doesn't work: Explaining policies of
retention in the early grades. Phi Delta Kappan 69(2), 129-134.

Smylie, M.A. & Evans, A.E. (2006). Social capital and the problem of
implementation. . In M Honig (Ed.), New Directions in Education Policy
Implementation (187-208). New York: SUNY Press.

Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teitelbaum, P. (2003). The influence of high school graduation requirement policies
in mathematics and science on student course taking patterns and
achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 31-57.

146
Ulrich, D.O. & LaFasto, F. (1995). Organizational culture and human resource
management. Handbook of Human Resource Management. Ferris, G.R.,
Sherman, D.R., and Barnum, D.T., eds. Boston: Blackwell Publishing.

U.S. Department of Education (1999). Taking responsibility for ending social
promotion: a guide for educators and state and local leaders. Retrieved on
March 2009 from: http://www2.ed.gov/PDFDocs/socialprom.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education (2002). Coming of age in the 1990s: the eighth grade
class of 1988 12 years later. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government printing
Office.

Warburton, E., Bugarin, R., & Nunez, A.M. (2001) Bridging the gap: academic
preparation and postsecondary success of first generation students. National
Center for Educational Statistics (NCES 2001-153).

Webb, N.L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and
assessments in four states (Research Monograph No. 18). Madison:
University of Wisconsin, National Institute for Science Education.

Wimberley, G.L., & Noeth, R.J. (2005). College readiness begins in middle school:
policy report. Iowa City, IA: ACT.

Venezia, A. Kirst, M.W. & Antonio, A.L. (2003). Betraying the college dream: how
disconnected k-12 and postsecondary education systems undermine student
aspirations. Stanford. CA: The Stanford Institute for Higher Education
Research.

Ziomek, R.L. & Svec, J.C. (1997). High school grades and achievement: Evidence of
grade achievement. NASSP Bulletin 81, 105-113.
147
APPENDIX
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Interview Questions for 8
th
Grade Teachers
1. What are the goals of Policy 4502?
2. Do you believe policy 4502 is effective in achieving these goals?
3. What are your personal beliefs regarding promotion and retention?
4. Do you believe these personal views help or hinder you carrying out Policy 4502
the way it was intended? How or how don’t they?
5. What is your basis for grades? (is it 100% standards-based grading?)
6. What do the other teachers in your grade level believe about retention?
7. What is your opinion of Policy 4502? Its intent? Its effectiveness?
8. How do you think these beliefs affect the implementation of Policy 4502?
9. At the end of the year, what do you do if a student is not proficient or not
approaching proficiency in your class?
10. What do you think the other teachers do in your school if a student is not
proficient or not approaching proficiency in your grade level?
11. Are students who receive “Ds” considered approaching proficiency or proficient?
12. Do you give “Ds”?
13. Do other teachers in your school give “Ds”?
14. Are “Ds” considered proficient or approaching proficient?
15. What do you feel are the barriers, if any, to implementing Policy 4502?
148
16. Do you believe the principal should have the final say whether or not a student is
retained or not?
17. What do your administrators believe about retention?
18. What do they think about Policy 4502?

Interview Questions for Middle School Administrators
1. What are the goals of Policy 4502?
2. Do you believe Policy 4502 is effective in achieving these goals? Why or why
not?
3. What was your retention numbers for each grade level last year?
4. What are your personal beliefs regarding promotion and retention?
5. Do you believe these personal views help or hinder you carrying out Policy 4502
the way it was intended? How or how don’t they?
6. Do you believe Regular Education Students should pass all four core content
areas before being promoted to 9
th
grade? Why or why not?
7. What is your teachers’ basis for grades? (is it 100% standards-based grading?)
8. What is your opinion of Policy 4502? Its intent? Its effectiveness?
9. How do you think these beliefs affect the implementation of Policy 4502?
10. What do your teachers do at the end of the year if a student is not proficient or
not approaching proficiency in your class? (Are the students retained?)
11. Are students who receive “Ds” considered approaching proficiency or proficient?
12. Do your teachers give “Ds”?
149
13. Are “Ds” considered proficient or approaching proficient?
14. What do you feel are the barriers, if any, to implementing Policy 4502?
15. Do you believe the principal should have the final say whether or not a student is
retained or not?
16. What do your teachers believe about retention?
17. What do they think about Policy 4502?

Interview Questions for 9
th
Grade Teachers
1. Are the Regular Education Students in your content area, who were promoted to
9
th
grade, academically prepared for high school level work? How? or if not,
where are they lacking?
2. What do you think are the goals of Policy 4502?
3. If Policy 4502’s intent is to make sure students are academically prepared for 9
th

grade level work, do you think the policy is effective in achieving this goal? If
not, what do you think are some of the barriers?
4. What are your personal beliefs regarding retention? In middle/intermediate
school?
5. What do you think the 8
th
grade teachers of your students beliefs about retention
and promotion are?
6. Have you ever held students back? If so, about how many a year?
150
7. If the students who were held back were proficient or approaching proficiency in
8
th
grade before being promoted, do you think you would have had to hold those
students back? Why or why not?
8. How is Policy 4502 helping prepare students for 9
th
grade?
9. Do you think Policy 4502 can help on cutting down the 9
th
grade retention rate?
How or why not?
10. What are some of the barriers, if any, to implementing Policy 4502?

Interview Questions for High School Administrators
1. Are the Regular Education Students who were promoted to 9
th
grade,
academically prepared for high school level work? How? or if not, where are
they lacking?
2. What do you think are the goals of Policy 4502?
3. If Policy 4502’s intent is to make sure students are academically prepared for 9
th

grade level work, do you think the policy is effective in achieving this goal? If
not, what do you think are some of the barriers?
4. What are your personal beliefs regarding retention? In middle/intermediate
school?
5. What do you think the 8
th
grade teachers of your students beliefs about retention
and promotion are?
6. What do you think the middle/intermediate school administrators view about
retention are?
151
7. Have you ever held students back? If so, about how many a year?
8. If the students who were held back were proficient or approaching proficiency in
8
th
grade before being promoted, do you think you would have had to hold those
students back? Why or why not?
9. How is Policy 4502 helping prepare students for 9
th
grade?
10. What was your 9
th
grade retention rate from last year?
11. Do you think Policy 4502 can help on cutting down the 9
th
grade retention rate?
How or why not?
12. What are some of the barriers, if any, to implementing Policy 4502?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract To compete in the global economy, high school graduates need to be college and career ready. The number of jobs for those with a high school diploma or less is dwindling. Investing in education is more important than ever. According to Hawaii Department of Education’s 2008 Superintendent’s Report, Hawaii has been graduating only about 80% of its freshmen on time with lower performing schools only graduating 60% on time. Hawaii’s eighth graders are transitioning to high school with skill levels well below levels needed for success. To combat the problem of unprepared eighth graders transitioning to high school, the Hawaii Board of Education passed Policy 4502 in 2002, as part of its Promotion Policy 4500 Series. Policy 4502 is titled, “Middle Level Education Promotion Policy.” Policy 4502 states that in order for sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students to be promoted, they need to have a passing grade in the four core subjects of language arts, math, science, and social studies. The goal of the policy is to make sure students promoted to high school are prepared. This study sought to look at how the Hawaii Department of Education has implemented Policy 4502 and if it is achieving it goals. The purpose of this study is to inform policy makers in the state of Hawaii of the effectiveness of the implementation of Policy 4502.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School

PDF

Culturally relevant pedagogy in an elementary school for indigent native peoples

PDF

A case study: school-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high poverty urban schools

PDF

Adequacy in education: an evidence-based approach to resource allocation in alternative learning environments

PDF

Cyber-harassment in higher education: online learning environments

PDF

Internationalization of higher education: a case study of three Korean private universities

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

The pursuit of equity: a comparative case study of nine schools and their use of data

PDF

Hawaiian language and culture in the middle level math class

PDF

An investigation of students' perceptions and fears before and after transitioning to middle school

PDF

Assessing the meaning and value of traditional grading systems: teacher practices and perspectives

PDF

Designing an early warning system for Hawaii: identifying indicators of positive high school outcomes

PDF

CAHSEE intervention strategies implemented by successful urban California superintendents

PDF

Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior

PDF

Oregon education policy implementation: a case study of the achievement compacts information dissemination of the Oregon Education Investment Board

PDF

The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii

PDF

School funding and the evidence based model: an examination of high school budget allocation in Hawaii

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lesson from a high performing high poverty urban elementary school

PDF

Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school

Asset Metadata

Creator Barton, Corey M. (author)

Core Title Hawaii Board of Education's middle grade promotion policy: a policy implementation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 03/26/2010

Defense Date 03/06/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education pipeline,Hawaii's middle school promotion policy,middle school promotion,OAI-PMH Harvest,policy implementation

Place Name Hawaii (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Brewer, Dominic J. (committee chair), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email cbarton@usc.edu,corlisbar@netzero.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2882

Unique identifier UC1392522

Identifier etd-Barton-3594 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-294728 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2882 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Barton-3594.pdf

Dmrecord 294728

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Barton, Corey M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu