University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of California school districts' response to AB 1626, AB 1639, and SB 1370: The Pupil Promotion and Retention Act of 1998

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of California school districts' response to AB 1626, AB 1639, and SB 1370: The Pupil Promotion and Retention Act of 1998

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. (JMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bteedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
fro m left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6‘ x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road. A nn Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AN EXAMINATION OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICTS’
RESPONSE TO AB 1626, AB 1639, AND SB 1370: THE
PUPIL PROMOTION AND RETENTION ACT OF 1998
by
Dana Jaye Whetton
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2001
Copyright 2001 Dana Jaye Whetton
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3054825
Copyright 2001 by
Whetton, Dana Jaye
All rights reserved.
___ __ (g)
UMI
UMI Microform 3054825
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
School of E duc ation -
Lo s Angeles. California 90089-0031
This dissertation, written by
Dana Jave Whetton
under the direction o f h___Dissertation Committee, and
approved by a ll members o f the Committee, has been
presented to and accepted by the Faculty o f the School
o f Education in partialfulfillm ent of the requirementsfor
the degree o f
D o c to r o f Ed u c a ti o n
Dissertation Committee
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TA BLES........................................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... v
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1
Background of the Problem ..................................................... 1
Assembly Bill 1626 .............................................................. 4
Assembly Bill 1639.............................................................. 7
Senate Bill 1370 .................................................................. 8
Statement of the Problem......................................................... 9
Purpose of the Study ................................................................ 1 1
Importance of the Study............................................................ 12
Assumptions of the Study......................................................... 13
Summary of the Methodology................................................... 13
Organization of the Remainder of the Study............................ 15
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................. 16
National Movement to End Social Promotion.......................... 16
History of Retention .................................................................. 22
Early Retention Research......................................................... 24
Modem Retention Trends......................................................... 30
State and Citywide Initiatives................................................... 36
Chicago Public Schools..................................................... 37
California............................................................................ 43
Standardized Tests as the Promotional Criterion................... 49
Interventions for Assisting Underachieving Students 51
Conclusion................................................................................ 55
3. METHODOLOGY............................................................................ 57
Instrumentation ........................................................................ 57
Population and Sample ........................................................... 60
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter Page
Data Collection Procedures..................................................... 62
Data Analysis............................................................................ 62
4. THE FINDINGS ............................................................................. 65
Question 1: Current Retention Rates...................................... 65
Question 2: Prior Retention and Promotion Criteria............... 69
Question 3: STAR and Other Indicators of Achieve
ment .................................................................................... 72
Question 4: Services Available to At-Risk Students............... 75
Summary of Findings................................................................ 81
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDA
TIONS ....................................................................................... 82
Summary .................................................................................. 82
The Problem ...................................................................... 82
Methodology ...................................................................... 87
Selected Findings ............................................................. 88
Conclusions.............................................................................. 89
Recommendations From the Study ........................................ 92
Recommendations for Further S tu d y...................................... 93
REFERENCES C IT E D .................................................................................. 95
APPENDICES
A. LETTER OF INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 102
B. SU R VEY............................................................................................ 104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Union-Elementary Respondents to Surveys................................... 63
2. Unified Respondents to Surveys...................................................... 63
3. Total Respondents to Surveys ........................................................ 64
4. Percentage of School Districts Reporting Retentions by
Grade L evel.............................................................................. 66
5. Retention Rates for California School Districts............................... 68
6. Influential Factors for Retention/Promotion..................................... 71
7. Academic Indicators for Determining Retention/
Promotion, by Percentage ....................................................... 74
8. Changes to Required Program s..................................................... 77
9. Intervention Programs for Identified At-Risk Students .................. 80
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
Despite the overwhelming research on the negative effects of retaining
students, many states have began to pass laws requiring low performing stu
dents to repeat their previous grade. In September 1998, California legislators
passed into law three bills designed to end social promotion. The new laws
require school districts to develop new retention/promotion policies to ensure
students entered into their high school years with basic reading and math skills.
Students at risk of retention are to be identified as early as possible in their ed
ucational careers and are to receive extra help prior to being retained. Stu
dents who fail to meet district criteria are not allowed to proceed to the next
grade level.
The purpose of this study was to examine California school districts’
response to the new laws. The study surveyed state school districts on their
retention/intervention practices prior to the new legislation and then asked
districts to identify their criteria for retaining students and the intervention
strategies they planned to use as a result of the new laws.
All California school districts with a student population of at least 100
students were surveyed during the spring and summer of 1999. Nearly one
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
third of the districts participated in the study. Results indicated that school
districts would be more aggressive in providing a higher level of intervention
strategies for identified students. In addition, districts planned to use a variety
of criteria when making the final decision to retain. Although the legislation
does not include kindergarten or first grade students, two thirds of the school
districts stated they would include kindergarten and first grade students in their
policy statements. The first grade reading intervention program, Reading Re
covery, was mentioned by nearly half of the responding districts as a potential
program for at-risk students. Nearly half the districts also reported that they
would be developing their own programs to meet the needs of their students.
The legislation suggests that districts use a minimum score from the state test
ing program to identify students for intervention and retention. Nearly all dis
tricts reported they would use additional measures to make the decision on re
tention and promotion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
One of the most emotional decisions that an educator can make is the
decision whether to promote a low-achieving student to the next grade level or
to retain the child in the same grade. The decision is filled with confusion about
what is best for the child. A low-achieving student who demonstrated little or
no success with the curriculum at the current grade is not likely to find success
with a more difficult curriculum at the next grade, but the research evidence is
clear on the negative effects of retention. Because of the negative effects of
retention, many school districts have opted simply to pass the student on to the
next grade level, even though the student’s performance has not been satisfac
tory. This practice is known as “ social promotion."
Recently, this practice has come under fire and has created a nation
wide concern for many students who have not been held to an achievement
level necessary to be successful in today s society. The concern has turned
into a national movement to toughen the academic standards for all students.
States are passing new legislation mandating testing and requiring students to
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
achieve at specific levels before being allowed to move on to the next grade
level, thereby ending social promotion. School districts throughout the country
have developed or are in the process of developing policy to eliminate the
practice.
The 1983 report Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983) called for a greater focus on academic standards and on a
student's progress on meeting the standards as a determining factor for ad
vancement to the next grade. Since its publication there has been a greater
emphasis on standards, as many states have established specific standards
for grade promotion and increased requirements for high school graduation.
With a greater focus on holding students accountable to meet the standards,
there has been a nationwide increase in the number of students being retained
(Shepard & Smith, 1989).
Given the clearly documented evidence that grade-level retention has
no beneficial effect, retaining underachievers is not a solution (Meisels & Liaw,
1993; Shepard & Smith, 1986). According to Johns Hopkins University re
searcher Karl L. Alexander (as cited in Lawton, 1997), retention alone is not the
answer to meeting the needs of at-risk students. Extra attention and extra re
sources are needed. Although the research appears to be clear on the nega
tive effects of retention, few studies examine the effects of retention policies
when combined with aggressive remedial programs (Johnston, 1998).
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In 1996 the Chicago Public Schools initiated a program requiring stu
dents who performed below a specific cutoff point to receive intervention and
then be tested again. Students not passing the test the second time were re
tained at grade level. Texas Governor George W. Bush and New York City
Schools Chancellor Rudy Crew developed proposals requiring that students
who do not pass state tests at certain grade levels be held back at grade level.
Seven other states (Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and West Virginia) also require students to pass state-level
tests based on standards before they are promoted to certain grade levels.
Until recently, California had taken a strong position against grade level reten
tion (Heubert & Hauser, 1999).
California recently joined the national movement by enacting AB 1626
(Pupil Promotion and Retention Act of 1998) to end social promotion. Califor
nia's legislation goes beyond ending social promotion, as it requires early iden
tification of students who are or who may be at risk of being retained and re
quires schools to provide opportunities for remedial instruction for the students.
The intent of the law is to support rigorous academic standards and high ex
pectations for California students. The new law requires California school
districts to intervene with each student who is not achieving at expected levels
of performance. Support for retained or at-risk students is provided in two ad
ditional bills: (a) Assembly Bill (AB) 1639 (Mandatory Summer School:
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Required Intensive Instructional Programs Act of 1998) mandates supplemen
tal educational services for all students who have been retained, and (b) Sen
ate Bill (SB) 1370 (Summer School Funding Act of 1998) provides funding for
the supplemental educational sen/ices.
The legislation supports the use of remedial programs without specifying
particular programs. However, AB 1639 requires that intensive remedial pro
grams include instruction in phoneme awareness, systematic explicit phonics
and decoding, word attack skills, spelling and vocabulary, and explicit instruc
tion on reading comprehension, writing, and study skills. Districts are afforded
flexibility in how they implement these strategies. They may choose to imple
ment or expand current programs such as Reading Recovery, Success for All,
or their own literacy programs. Flexibility is also afforded districts as to when
they will offer remedial services. Service can be provided during summer
school, during intersession, on Saturdays, before and after school, or in any
combination. The only restriction specified in AB 1639 is that students must
not be removed from their classroom during classroom instruction in the core
curriculum.
Assembly Bill 1626
Prior to AB 1626, California required school districts to adopt policies
regarding student promotion and retention, and required students to be pro
moted or retained based on those policies. Assembly Bill 1626 specifies
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
guidelines about what district-adopted policies must include related to retention
at specific grade levels, levels of student performance needed for promotion,
and early identification of students at risk of retention. Furthermore, each
school district must adopt policies for promotion and retention of students be
tween grade levels from second through fifth grade, and between levels of
schooling (i.e., elementary-junior high/middle and junior high/middle school-
high school).
The new law also requires school districts to create policies designed to
identify students who may be at risk of retention. Determination of risk is to be
based either on a predetermined minimum standard score on the state stan
dardized test or on the student’s grades and other academic indicators. The
law directs the State Superintendent of Schools to make a recommendation as
to the minimum level of performance on the state standardized test for student
promotion. Reading is the primary area of focus at grades 2 and 3, where a
student’s levels of performance in reading, English language arts, and mathe
matics are all to be considered for all other grade levels. When a student’s
level of performance falls below the stated minimum, the student should be re
tained unless the student’s teacher states, in writing, the reasons that retention
would not be the most appropriate level of intervention for the student. The
teacher may make a student’s promotion contingent on the student success
fully completing a remedial program. If this is the case, the teacher must
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
re-evaluate the student and meet with the child’s parent or guardian to deter
mine whether the student should be promoted.
Assembly Bill 1626 sets only minimum criteria for retention and promo
tion. It does not prohibit school districts from initiating more rigorous promotion
standards. For example, school districts may set promotion standards for
grades other than those included in the legislation or set a higher minimum
score on the state-standardized test than that recommended by the State Su
perintendent of Schools. By setting minimum criteria, the new law grants au
thority to school districts to enact policies that exceed these levels.
Assembly Bill 1626 also establishes procedural principles for implemen
tation. One principle is early notification. The law requires notification of par
ents as early in the school year and as early in the student s school career as
practicable, once it has been determined that the student is at risk of retention.
Another principle involves the right to appeal. Once a student’s teacher recom
mends retention (or promotion), the district must have in place a procedure for
appeal. The law places the burden for overturning the teacher’s decision on
the appealing party. Finally, in keeping with the legislative intent to intervene,
district policy must include how students are to be identified as being at risk of
retention as well as how students recommended for retention will receive the
extra support that they need to achieve academic success.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Assembly Bill 1639
In the past, districts have been required to provide summer school in
grades 7 through 12. For students in these grades who were not meeting dis
trict standards, summer school was mandatory. Assembly Bill 1639 extends
this requirement to retained students enrolled in grades 2-9. The law gives
school districts the authority to require a retained student to participate, while at
the same time districts are also required to have a plan in place for parents who
refuse to enroll their child in the special program. Districts can require partici
pation but cannot make attendance in these programs compulsory.
In addition, AB 1639 encourages school districts to make similar inten
sive programs available to students who are at risk of retention in grades 2-6.
Clearly, the legislative intent is to provide all at-risk students the opportunity to
receive the assistance needed to achieve an acceptable level of performance.
Initially, school districts must focus on early identification of students who are in
danger of failing. Then, the emphasis shifts to providing the at-risk students
with a direct, systematic, intensive, intervention program specifically designed
to meet their needs.
Expectations about the content of remedial reading and writing pro
grams are explicit. These programs must include instruction in phoneme
awareness, systematic explicit phonics and decoding, word attack skills, spell
ing and vocabulary, and explicit instruction in reading comprehension and
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
writing and study skills. The new law encourages school districts to include
parents in the planning and development of these intensive supplemental pro
grams.
This new legislation also provides additional funding for schools who
have students enrolled specifically in remedial programs in grades 2-6. Dis
tricts will be entitled to receive an additional reimbursement in an amount up to
5% of the district’s total number of students enrolled in grades 2-6 in the prior
fiscal year, multiplied by 120 hours, multiplied by the hourly rate as determined
by the Education Code section 42239 (c).
Senate Bill 1370
Senate Bill 1370 provides school districts with additional revenue to
operate summer school programs. Prior law provided school districts with rev
enues based on an amount equal to 5% of the district’s total enrollment, multi
plied by 120 hours, multiplied by the hourly rate as determined by the Educa
tion Code section 42239 (c). The new legislation increases the total enrollment
factor from 5% to 7%. Senate Bill 1370 also allows for reallocation of funds,
moving excess funds from the core summer school program to remedial sum
mer school programs created as a result of AB 1639. The new law allows
school districts to move any unexpected balance to fund any shortfall in
needed funds for a district’s remedial summer school. If districts do not use the
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
entire 7% formula on their core summer school programs, they may use the
excess, up to the 10% formula, to help fund their remedial program.
Statement of the Problem
California has long resisted ending social promotion (Heubert & Hauser,
1999). As recently as 1992, the California Department of Education publication
It’ s Elementary recommended that schools develop alternatives to retention.
However, the new legislative package (AB 1626, AB 1639, SB 1370) specif
ically requires districts to develop policies for student promotion and requires
that students not meeting the criteria in these policies be retained.
In her 1998 letter to district and county superintendents State Superin
tendent of Public Schools Delaine Eastin articulated the scope and emphasis
of the new legislation. As she stated, the intent of the legislation is to provide
school districts with a mechanism of support for students who are not reaching
the rigorous content standards set by the state. The new legislation outlines
new promotion and retention requirements and provides funding for intensive
instructional support for students who have been identified as being at risk of
being retained. It encourages districts and counties to develop policies to iden
tify students early in their educational careers and then to provide aggressive
and immediate intervention sen/ices designed to prevent retention. Superin
tendent Eastin further recommended that new policies should not only identify
criteria for retention but should include district assessment plans and the type
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of intervention strategies that districts will use to help students to achieve the
necessary levels of success for promotion.
Two of the three bills were “ urgency statutes” and took effect immedi
ately upon filing with the Secretary of State. Assembly Bill 1639 was filed on
September 23,1998 and SB 1370 was filed on September 29,1998. AB 1626,
the only non-urgency statute became effective January 1,1999. The require
ment for immediate implementation was problematic for more than 1,000
school districts in California that suddenly needed to provide assistance to all
students not reaching the state standards.
Not only must districts provide intervention; ideally, the provided inter
vention will improve student weaknesses. But the literature provides little as
sistance. First, the inclusion of intervention programs in the retention research
is limited. Holmes (1989) found positive results when intervention programs
were provided to students who had been retained. However, research on
many of the intervention programs does not demonstrate a high level of suc
cess (Bracey, 1999; Hattie, 1999). Given the uneven performance of interven
tion programs and the overwhelming negative research on retention, the follow
ing questions should be asked: How will school districts will respond to the
new legislation? What emphasis will the districts place on intervention? What
intervention strategies do the districts plan to use?
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Purpose of the Study
This study investigates California school districts’ response to the new
legislation: (a) it identifies the rates at which California school districts retain
students; (b) it determines the criteria that school districts used, prior to AB
1626, when deciding to promote or retain students; and (c) it identifies the serv
ices to be offered to students who are retained. This study also identifies
changes in district practices as a result of AB 1626 by determining (a) the new
criteria that districts plan to use to identify students who will be or who are at
risk of being retained, and (b) any changes in services to be offered to retained
or identified at-risk students.
Specifically the study asks the following questions:
1. What are the current retention rates of California school districts?
2. Prior to AB 1626, what criteria did districts use to determine student
retention?
3. Prior to AB 1626, what services were provided to retained students?
4. What criteria do districts plan to use to make the retention decision?
5. What services will districts make available to students identified as
being at risk of retention and how will these services be different from services
currently available to students?
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Importance of the Study
President Clinton called for the end to “ social promotion” in his last three
State of the Union addresses, most recently saying, “ We do our children no
favors when we allow them to pass from grade to grade without mastering the
material” (Clinton, 1998, p. 310). Numerous states, including California, have
enacted legislation to make this perception public policy. These laws tend to
ignore the research on grade-level retention which goes back more than 50
years and consistently demonstrates that retention has no educational benefit
(Owings & Magliaro, 1998). California goes further than simply mandating the
elimination of social promotion by mandating development of remedial pro
grams and summer school and by providing funding for these programs.
Although a majority of the studies have concluded that retention does not work,
few studies have discussed the impact of remedial programs for students in
danger of being retained (Johnston, 1998; Owings & Magliaro). Thus, the Cali
fornia effort represents a unique attempt that warrants investigation.
The intent of the California legislation is to improve student achievement
by encouraging school districts to aggressively identify and provide remedial
services to students at risk of failing. If this goal is to be accomplished, it is es
sential to understand both the processes used to identify at-risk students and
the efforts to provide effective remedial programs. While the current California
legislative package is still in its infancy, it is important to gather formative data
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for legislators, district administrators, and board members so they can revise
and refine programs to promote student success. This study attempts to pro
vide this information.
Assumptions of the Study
The following assumptions were made in the conduct of this study:
1. District superintendents or their designees had adequate knowledge
of policies and practices to provide information.
2. Districts would be willing to provide information; however, districts
would be at a varying of levels of implementation, including some districts at
the very beginning of the implementation process. These beginning districts
would be able to provide only limited or no useful information.
3. Districts were aware of and were acting on the new legislation.
Summary of the Methodology
The methodology of this descriptive study was survey research. One
survey was developed for this purpose. The survey was designed to collect
information from district superintendents or their designees in regard to the
recently passed legislation (AB 1626, AB 1639, and SB 1370) known as the
Student Accountability Act. The survey asked districts to respond to questions
concerning their retention of students and the types of services provided for
these students. Districts were also asked to respond to questions about how
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
they would identify students for retention and the services that they would
provide to these students as a result of the new legislation.
The survey was piloted with five administrators in three southern Califor
nia school districts to test the validity of the instrument. After their completion
of the survey, the items were discussed to determine the pertinence of the
items to the topic. No concerns developed as to the wording of the questions;
however, the administrators raised concerns about districts’ progress. In the
spring of 1999, many districts were just beginning to develop promotion/reten
tion policies. Because of this concern, the instrument was sent to all California
school districts, so that all districts farther along in the process would be in
cluded.
Using the California Public Schools Directory (California State Depart
ment of Education, 1998), all California elementary and unified districts with a
student population of 100 or more students were identified. Of the 795 districts
meeting the size criterion, 482 were elementary and 313 were unified districts.
All 795 identified district superintendents were sent a letter of introduction (Ap
pendix A) and the questionnaire (Appendix B) concerning their district’s re
sponse to the new legislation.
The instrument was mailed to all districts on June 8,1999, along with a
stamped return envelope. Responses began to arrive on June 14,1999. By
June 30,197 responses had been received. Responses continued to be
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
received throughout the summer of 1999. The final survey used in the study
was received on September 9,1999. The final total of usable responses was
254.
The data from the survey instrument were analyzed using computer
statistical software. The findings were obtained to answer the research ques
tions posed by the study.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The remainder of the text provides a detailed description of the study.
Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature. The methodology of the study,
including the research design instruments, data collected, and method of anal
ysis, are described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 reports the findings of the study.
Chapter 5 summarizes the findings, draws conclusions based on the findings,
and recommends policies and practices based on the conclusions. A refer
ence list and appendices are presented following the text.
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter examines relevant studies on a number of issues posed by
this study. First, the opposing practices of social promotion and grade reten
tion are examined historically and as they influence policy today. Second,
recent efforts to end social promotion in Chicago and California are described.
Third, the viability of using high-stakes standardized assessments is examined,
as is the effectiveness of intervention programs implemented to assist low-
achieving students.
National Movement to End Social Promotion
Broadly defined, social promotion is the “ advancement of a student to a
higher grade level before the student has mastered the skills of the current
grade level” (Potter, 1996, p. 268). As a “ less technical definition," Potter sug
gested that social promotion may be construed as “ the perceived vehicle to
mediocrity in education” (p. 268). From this perspective, social promotion has
failed because of an educational paradox: “ Students arrived in higher grade
under prepared for the instructional level and educators who received them
were underprepared to teach them” (p. 268).
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
During the 1940s social promotion was a keynote of progressive educa
tion, and the promotion of low-achieving students was viewed as a favorable
alternative to retention, to be accompanied by systematic adaptation of instruc
tion to the child’s individual needs (Rothstein, 1998). While excellent in theory,
the heterogeneity of learners’ needs resulting from social promotion, coupled
with growing class size and resistance to changing the way in which classes
were taught, precluded the individualized instruction envisioned by earlier gen
erations of reformers. Instead, teachers were faced with the daunting task of
bringing students who started below grade level up to par by the end of the
year, an effort involving a gain of more than a full year’s work. Without specific
interventions to boost students' work, the inevitable result was a cycle of poor
performance.
Even as social promotion gained prominence in the mid-20th century, it
was never without debate. In 1950, an essay in Life criticized the “ grievous
faults” of public schools that “ promote all children at the end of each academic
year regardless of whether their work has been good, bad or indifferent” (as
cited in Rothstein, 1998, p. 198). In a widely publicized 1952 speech, an Ore
gon school reform leader declared that the “ age group promotion [system] re
moves the necessity of meeting definite standards and destroys incentives. . .
everybody passes anyway” (as cited in Rothstein, 1998, p. 198).
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Currently, California is in the forefront of the move to end social promo
tion. One California resident supported the view of the Oregon reformer by
stating, u l am for ending social promotion because if it doesn’t matter whether
you pass or fail, school is just a joke” (as cited in Augustiny & Hien, 2000, p.
14). The author was a 15-year-old student. At the same time, the young man
did not “ believe the district will follow through” because of its lack of teachers
and minimal show of improvement. This student, and several others whose
letters appeared in the Los Angeles Times, were aware of the paradox facing
California reformers: While the goal of ending social promotion is well inten-
tioned, the proposed sweeping effort may be beyond the means of the system.
One student proposed that easing into the plan might be the best way.
Potter (1996) viewed “ social promotion” and “ social retention” as alter
nating components of a cycle that developed as teachers attempted to avoid
being labeled as “ failures" because of their students’ poor performance. Social
promotion developed in response to the high proportion of students being re
tained. If socially promoted students could not catch up or keep up with their
new grade, the response was to retain them again, and the pendulum would
swing back. To Potter, the demands of business for high-quality students was
a key factor in the current shift from social promotion. Support for this perspec
tive comes from IBM Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Louis Gerstner (as cited in
Rothstein, 1998): “ Too often schools reward students merely for showing up,
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
not for proficiency. Because educators do not define the goals students must
achieve to advance from grade to grade, students who cannot read, write, or
compute are promoted” (p. 195).
The problems generated by retention of large numbers of students un
dermine efforts to eliminate social promotion. The stringent guidelines origi
nally proposed for ending social promotion in the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD) generated the alarm that as many as half of the more than
700,000 students in the nation’s second largest public school system might be
forced to repeat a grade (Sanchez, 2000). As a result, new guidelines base
promotion only on scores in English, disregarding scores in math and other
subjects. A “ D" in English is enough to keep a student from being retained
(Smith & Sahagun, 2000). Even the grades in which students are tested were
reduced, with only grades 2 and 8 being tested. Parents of students at risk of
failure received a notice saying that students who failed the English exam
would still be promoted if they passed a subsequent writing test. Robert Barner
(as cited in Smith & Sahagun), assistant superintendent for student interven
tion programs, admitted, “ We are not saying all the youngsters who moved on
are proficient” (p. A1).
In Oakland, California, slightly more than half of the 14,000 students
sent to mandatory summer school failed to attend, yet they were still promoted.
In spite of “ tough talk,” school district officials claimed that the first year was a
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“ warm-up” and that students would not be retained for at least 2 more years
(May, 1999). On the surface, it would appear that the movement to end social
promotion has simply transformed one monster problem into another kind of
monster problem.
Educators and other professionals understand that the successful end
of social promotion requires meticulous planning, not simply a demand for
change. Linda Darling-Hammond (1998) called for extensive reform efforts,
including school redesign to support more intensive learning, enhanced profes
sional development to ensure that teachers have the skills required to teach a
diverse student body to meet high standards, appropriate services and sup
ports for all students, and use of classroom assessments to guide teaching.
Sociologist Robert Hauser, who headed a recent National Academy of Sci
ences study of high-stakes testing, supported a gradual effort to end social
promotion. According to Hauser, “ People are just realizing it’s unreasonable to
start applying very high and inflexible standards before you have given kids
and schools and teachers the resources they need and adequate notice" (as
cited in Wildavsky, 1999, p. 62).
From an historical perspective, the apparent frenzy to end social promo
tion may be the inevitable result of a practice allowed to continue too long. In
the 1970s, growing complaints by employers that new high school graduates
lacked basic competence in reading or computation were augmented by a
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1976 education malpractice lawsuit brought before the courts for a student who
had graduated from high school without learning to read (Shepard & Smith,
1989). In the lawsuit against the San Francisco Unified School District, the
plaintiffs claimed that the district failed to identify a reading disability, and of
greater significance, the schools continued to promote the student despite
awareness that he lacked the skills to succeed at the next level. Although the
school district prevailed, the case underscored a district’s potential liability for
promoting students who fail to display basic skills.
By the late 1970s, legislation was passed mandating that students pass
a minimum competence test in order to graduate. However, these tests were
deemed unfair because the upper-grade students had been held to no prior
standard and were thus unprepared. It was understood that the tests would
have to be phased in overtime; furthermore, preparation of students would
have to start early in their academic careers. As a result, school districts began
to develop grade-level performance standards, as well as the rhetoric that stu
dents would be accountable to either meet the standards or repeat the grade
until the standard is met (Shepard & Smith, 1989).
Currently, the legislators who decry social promotion are caught be
tween the rhetoric of high standards and educational conditions which make
immediate implementation of retention unrealistic. The problem is not exclu
sive to California. The boards of education of Massachusetts, New York, and
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Wisconsin lowered their initial standards, and officials in Virginia and Arizona
came under pressure to ease the proposed academic standards (Wildavsky,
1999). Many states look to the Chicago school system as a model for reducing
social promotion. Chicago implemented a program based on a broad concep
tion of improvement that encompassed changes in leadership, resource avail
ability, and staff development (Hess, 1999).
History of Retention
The earliest American schools had no formal grade-level classification,
and thus had no issues of promotion or retention (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).
Children attended either district schools, where the mobility of teachers in and
out of the district disrupted the continuity of learning, or dame schools, where
students were taught individually and most of the day was spent in listening to
others reading aloud. Systematic supervision at the federal, state, or local level
was unknown, and education followed no standard curriculum. Teachers them
selves often lacked formal schooling. In effect, the education afforded to most
children was sporadic at best.
The idea that students should master a defined set of skills by a specific
age first took root in the late 18th century (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987). In the
larger American cities, the school structure became more formal and a basic
curriculum began to emerge; concurrently, students were expected to meet
certain age-level goals. For example, 11-year-olds were expected to complete
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10 lines of writing in their copybooks in a single learning session and complete
mathematics assignments in the next session. The designation of age-specific
requirements for skills mastery gradually led to the concept of “ norms.”
The Industrial Age of the 19th century influenced the course of educa
tion in two ways. A growing number of families wanted their children to attend
school; they were supported in this goal by educational leaders who held the
democratic view that education should be available to all children, not just
those who could pay for private tutors or schooling. This, in turn, generated a
need for schools that could serve a large number of students, and the industry
that fueled the migration to cities also served as a model for school organiza
tion (Angus, Mirel, & Vinovskis, 1988). Horace Mann, an influential leader in
education, visited Germany in 1843, and in the modem, efficient German
school system he saw a model that could further American education. German
schools had centralized control, well-trained teachers, and innovative teaching
techniques. Students were grouped into grades on the basis of age and aca
demic achievement. Modeled after the German schools, public schools began
to separate students by age. Primary schools were developed for boys be
tween ages 5 and 10 and girls between 5 and 12. Middle schools were estab
lished to accommodate older children.
An organized, graded school system offered the means to serve the
greatest number of students effectively (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987).
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Curriculum also became more formal, and it was divided into segments to fit
the graded structure. Each content area was arranged in an ordered sequence
of increasing difficulty and subdivided into segments, of which one segment
was expected to be mastered each year (Angus et al., 1988). By about 1860,
grading in elementary schools was commonplace. Promotion from one grade
to the next was contingent on mastering the appropriate curriculum segment
(Owings & Magliaro, 1998). Students were expected to enter school at age 5
or 6 and progress smoothly through the curriculum. Then, at age 14 or 15, they
would take an examination to enter high school. Although theoretically well-
planned, this expectation was rarely achieved (Angus et al.).
From its inception, the graded school structure was fraught with conflict.
The concept of merit-based promotion conflicted with the need to keep children
grouped according to age for the purposes of organizational efficiency. The
advocates of merit-based promotion prevailed, and underperforming students
were retained in grade. In fact, the practice was so widespread that, in the first
decades of graded education, more than 70% of students were retained
(Shepard & Smith, 1989). Few students passed, or were expected to pass, the
high school entrance examination.
Early Retention Research
With few students completing the trajectory of schooling as planned, it
was inevitable that the system itself would come under question. By 1874,
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
educators were debating the deficiencies of the graded system in meeting the
needs of individual students. They identified two distinct populations who were
hurt by the rigid grading system: (a) students capable of mastering the material
at a faster pace than their grade-level peers, and (b) students who learned at a
slower pace and were forced to repeat entire grades. At the turn of the 20th
century, William Shearer, superintendent in New Castle, Pennsylvania, de
scribed the problem as an “ intellectual lock step” that forced students of varying
abilities to stay together year after year, to the detriment of many (Angus et al.,
1988). Paradoxically, as more educators criticized the grading system for
impeding the progress of children of different abilities, more parents, including
the growing number of immigrants, expected their children to attend school.
Even if the system was imperfect, it was deemed the most efficient way to
serve an expanding student body in an era when efficiency was a keynote.
The New York City school system was the first to report on promotion
and retention. Published in 1904, superintendent W. H. Maxwell’s study of
age-grade level progress “ became the standard vehicle for school system re
ports on retention, promotion, and dropouts” (Owings & Magliaro, 1998, p. 86).
In his report, Maxwell decried the use of retention as a strategy for improving
the grades of students performing below par. However, as Potter (1996, p.
268), observed, “ It was already too late,” as the practice of retention was so
prevalent. No national data existed on the number of students retained, nor do
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
they exist today. Retention rates are an estimate based on the proportion of
students of a given age who are not in the appropriate grade. Nearly a century
ago, Thorndike (as cited in Shepard & Smith, 1989) described this method of
inferring retention rates as merely a “ best guess.” Despite the high margin for
error, this method is still used for calculating retention rates.
In 1908, two reports documented the negative effects of grade retention.
In The Elimination of Pupils from School Thorndike clearly linked the high drop
out rate to retention (as cited in Angus et al., 1988). As a proponent of the
school efficiency movement, Thorndike identified two main efficiency concerns
for schools. First was the high rate of dropout; two thirds of elementary school
students and 90% of high school students did not finish schooling. Second,
Thorndike criticized the course of study for being too demanding and lacking
relevance to students’ lives (the latter a prominent concern of school reformers
today). The identification of non-promotion as a cause of dropout raised public
awareness of issues of placement, retention, and dropout. Public demand
grew for appropriate grade placement, and newspapers began reporting the
number of over-age students in each grade.
The second report exposing the failure of grade retention was published
by the Russell Sage Foundation; it focused on the financial and human costs.
In a cost analysis of 55 urban school districts, researcher Leonard Ayres found
that the costs of retaining a student ranged from 5% in Newport, Rhode Island,
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to 30% in Camden, New Jersey. In New York City, 13% of the school budget
was spent on children retained in grade. Ayres attributed the discrepancies in
spending to differences in attitudes toward retention and social promotion. Like
Thorndike, Ayres was a proponent of efficiency, and he perceived a link be
tween retention and dropout. Ayres concluded that the retained child, “ humili
ated by being associated with companions who are younger than he, instead of
continuing. . . drops out”; he argued that reducing retention “ would greatly
enhance educational efficiency” (as cited in Rothstein, 1998, p. 197).
Ayres’s data on retention was followed in 1914 by a study of 100 school
districts by researchers at Stanford University. Once again, the researchers
found substantial differences among school districts. In one district, only 5% of
students were over age for their grade, while in another 63% fell behind the
appropriate grade (Rothstein, 1998). Rothstein noted that the proposals of
school district leaders for dealing with the problem paralleled those of today.
Fourteen school districts recommended “ more frequent promotions,” 11 recom
mended more “ individual help for slow pupils," and 37 proposed segregating
poor-performing students in “ ungraded classes," the equivalent of special edu
cation classes, or alternately, maintaining separate schools for “ dull or bright”
students.
Faced with overwhelming numbers of over-age students, education
leaders looked for causes outside of the school’s control. They as cited school
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
overcrowding, growing numbers of immigrant children, and parents who failed
to prepare their children for school (Angus et al., 1988). With no attempt to
change the way in which students were taught, the problem continued to in
crease (Potter, 1996). In response, educators created a system of “ continuous
progress” or “ social promotion” whereby students who had not demonstrated
mastery of curriculum skills were still allowed to progress to the next grade.
This practice took on special significance during the Depression, as it kept
many students out of the work force (Shepard & Smith, 1989). According to a
survey by the National Education Association (NEA), by 1938, most school su
perintendents supported social promotion (Angus et al.). A 1941 report by the
New York Board of Regents (as cited in Rothstein, 1998) declared:
A much wiser and more profitable procedure than non-promotion is to
adapt instruction to the needs of the pupil at all times and at the end of
the year advance him to the next grade or class and there continue to
adjust instruction to his needs, (p. 198)
Social promotion fit well with progressive educators' concept of the
“ whole child” and their concern with the needs of individual learners. Although
the purported goal of retention was to improve school performance by allotting
the student more time to develop the required skills, research compiled be
tween 1924 and 1948 showed no positive effect of retention (Owings & Mag
liaro, 1998). During the 1930s and 1940s, many educators came to regard
social promotion as a major innovation, as important as the grading system had
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
been a century earlier, and social promotion policies expanded throughout U.S.
school districts (Angus et al., 1988).
Despite its philosophical appeal and apparent popularity, social promo
tion, like retention, remained controversial. For example, Philadelphia adopted
a policy of “ continuous pupil progress” in the late 1930s. By 1946, the school
board was forced to defend itself against claims that Philadelphia schools
“ promoted everybody” (Rothstein, 1998). The board insisted that age was a
better grouping principle than academic achievement, and asserted that pro
motion decisions would continue to hinge on both social and academic factors.
However, they conceded that they would defer to teacher recommendations on
an individual basis.
Employing data from the U.S. Office of Education and from commercial
test publishers, a 1955 World Book research team (as cited in Rothstein, 1998)
documented a steady decline in the rates of students retained in grade. The
average age of students beginning eighth grade had dropped from 14 years in
1918 to 13.5 years in 1952, and a similar trend was found in each elementary
grade. The researchers noted that less-stringent requirements for promotion
led to greater variations in student performance within grade, with concurrent
demands on teachers to serve students with varying academic needs. How
ever, they concluded that given the progressive goal of considering children’s
“ physical, social and emotional outcomes as well as purely academic ones,”
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the advantages of social promotion “ probably outweigh the difficulties” (p. 197).
While the 1950s exemplified concern with the “ whole child," social promotion
was no less controversial then than it had been a decade earlier, or than it con
tinues to be.
Modem Retention Trends
U.S. census data on age/grade level suggest that the proportion of stu
dents retained dropped from 1950 to an all-time low in the 1970s, rising again
with the implementation of competency standards (Shepard & Smith, 1989).
According to one study, the percentage of students retained rose from 20% in
1980 to nearly 32% in 1992 (Owings & Magliaro, 1998). The current rate may
actually parallel the retention rates of the early 20th century.
Demographic data indicate that students retained are disproportionately
from lower socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds (Owings & Magliaro, 1998).
Darling-Hammond (1998) noted that teacher expertise has been found to be
the single most important contributor to student performance, but low SES,
minority, and special needs students are less likely to have well-qualified teach
ers. Minority status is also linked with higher retention: At age 13, the percent
age of over-age White students is 23.4%, compared to 38% for African Ameri
can students. Males are also more likely to be retained, with data suggesting
that 29.9% of males are retained by age 13, compared to 21.9% of females
(Shepard & Smith, 1989).
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The high rates of retention in U.S. schools stand in sharp contrast to
most European and Asian countries (Darling-Hammond & Falk, 1997). Despite
nearly 50 years of research failing to demonstrate an academic advantage to
students, proponents still argue that retention provides the struggling student
with more time and opportunity to catch up (Owings & Magliaro, 1998). Meisels
and Law (1993) examined assumptions underlying retention, namely that re
tention will benefit at-risk students who, given a second year to learn the mate
rial, will then perform at the top of their class. Participants included 16,623
eighth-grade public school students of White, African American, or Latino eth
nicity. Overall, 19.3% of the sample had been retained once in the course of
school K-8. Retention rates were higher for minority students (29.9 % for Afri
can Americans and 25.2% of Latinos) than for Whites (17.2%). More males
(24.0%) were retained than females (15.3%). The most striking difference was
found for SES, with 33% of students in the lowest quartile retained, compared
to only 8.6% in the highest quartile.
Significant differences emerged in the sample according to when stu
dents had been retained. Meisels and Law (1993) found that a higher propor
tion of students were retained in grades K-3 (67.2%) and, despite no substan
tial differences in eighth-grade cognitive tests, these students outperformed
those who had been retained in grades 4-8 (32.8%) on measures of achieve
ment. The early retainees were more likely to have learning disabilities or to
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
have had special education placement, but they were less likely than the later
retainees to have behavioral problems. White students who had been retained
had poorer outcomes than students of color. A similar effect was reported by
Byrd, Weitzman, and Auinger (1997), who found that being old for grade,
whether resulting from late entry into the school system or being retained in
grade, was related to behavioral problems in White youths in a large, national
sample. Being old for grade did not independently predict behavior problems in
Black children or adolescents. Overall, Meisels and Law could find no positive
effect of retention.
Throughout the 20th century, researchers have reported a link between
grade retention and dropout (Owings & Magliaro, 1998; Rothstein, 1998). A
study of White, French-speaking Canadian students representing two gener
ation—those who were 12 to 16 years old in 1974 (n = 791) and those of the
same age range in 1985 (n = 791)—explored the determinants of high dropout
(Janosz, LeBlanc, Boulerice, & Tremblay, 1997). The researchers found that
school, family, social, behavioral, and psychological factors all interacted to
predict dropout. Potential dropouts tended to have more than one grade reten
tion, have a history of poor grades, and feel disengaged from schooling. They
were more likely to come from backgrounds of low SES and low parental edu
cation, and have parents who laid out strict rules at home but failed to super
vise children's activities. They tended to be part of a large social group with a
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
propensity to engage in antisocial activities. Their overall profile was one of
psychological vulnerability. Of particular significance to the present study,
grade retention proved the most powerful predictor of school dropout.
The findings of Janosz et al. (1997) are largely consistent with U.S. stud
ies of school dropouts. Alexander, Entwisle, and Horsey (1997) viewed drop
out as the “ culmination of a long-term process of academic disengagement” (p.
87). Monitoring the educational progress of a sample of children entering the
Baltimore school system in 1982, they found a comparable interaction of
school, family, and personal variables (e.g., control orientation) in predicting
the trajectory of academic performance. Retention overlapped with classroom
marks and reading group placement, and proved a robust factor in analyses.
Alexander et al. concluded that stressors experienced outside school com
bined with the school experience to predict academic success or failure.
Extending their research on the course of school career, Entwisle and
Alexander (1998) viewed the initial transition to school as a critical time for the
child. The researchers as cited follow-up data from Head Start indicating that
Head Start children experienced fewer retentions or special education place
ments than peers of similar SES who did not participate. Although studies of
Head Start offer no specific insight into how the program helps children, Ent
wisle and Alexander noted that the Baltimore Beginning School Study (BSS)
and other studies of retention follow children on a year-by-year basis.
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Retention is highest in first grade, followed by second grade, and decreasing
each successive year. They speculated that the temporary elevation in IQ re
ported for Head Start children and other positive effects, while transient, enable
the children to do well at this critical point in their schooling, paving the way for
further success.
A similar effect to the impact of Head Start was found for children in the
BSS who had single parents but who lived in mother-grandmother households
(Entwisle & Alexander, 1998). These children had better work habits than oth
ers when they entered first grade. Although this advantage did not persist,
these children demonstrated a cumulative retention rate of 27% in the first 5
years of schooling, compared to 50% for children living in other types of single-
parent homes. In effect, the researchers proposed that an early advantage will
have a lasting impact on education.
Consistent with this viewpoint, Montgomery County, Washington, DC,
school superintendent Jerry Weast outlined a plan to raise the academic
achievement of all students, which would begin in the earliest grades, strength
ening the kindergarten curriculum, expanding all-day kindergarten programs to
schools where children are at particular risk, and dramatically reducing class
size in the neediest schools (Silverman, 1999).
Darling-Hammond (1998) observed, “ Even small children perceive that
being held back is a stigma” (p. 48). Darling-Hammond and Falk (1997)
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
compiled an extensive report on retention, confirming its negative impact. In
addition to being linked with behavior problems and academic failure in numer
ous studies, retained students reported having more problems with social ad
justment and they expressed more negative attitudes toward school after being
retained. Even when handled with sensitivity by educators and parents, stu
dents’ self-concept suffers and students tend to regard retention as an indica
tion of personal inadequacy.
Retention fails to elicit higher student performance, because the teach
ing and school environment that led to the initial failure does not change, ac
cording to Darling-Hammond and Falk (1997). As an example, the authors as
cited New York’s Promotional Gates Program, which was implemented and
discarded in the 1980s. Gateways were created in grades 4 and 8 through
which students could pass only by demonstrating a designated level of perfor
mance on the standardized citywide reading math tests. The result was that
large groups of children were repeatedly retained, with some students remain
ing in a single grade for so long that their advanced age and size exacerbated
their problems and disrupted their classmates’ learning. Eventually, the trouble
caused by these over-age students led to social promotion, until they were old
enough to drop out. In fact, research shows that a single retention increases a
student’s risk of dropout by 40% to 50%, and a second retention increases this
risk by 90%.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Darling-Hammond and Falk (1997) outlined three key reasons why re
tention does not work. First, the idea of “ repeating” the work of a full year is
inconsistent with research on the way in which children leam and develop. De
velopment is a continuous process that must be nurtured; it cannot be inter
rupted and redone. Second, the authors argued that scores from norm-
referenced, multiple-choice tests which are the basis for making promotion
decisions fail to determine what children actually know. The third, and most
important, reason given by Darling-Hammond and Falk is that they viewed
retention as the problem, rather than a solution, for poor school performance.
In essence, students are sent back to repeat the experience of failure. Very
little effort is made to ensure that the second time in a grade will be of higher
quality than the first. Only by improving the quality of the learning experience
will a repeated grade lead to a positive outcome.
State and Citywide Initiatives
President Clinton has repeatedly called for an end to social promotion.
In a 1998 memorandum he stated, “ Neither promoting students when they are
unprepared nor simply retaining them in the same grade is the right response
to low student achievement. Both approaches assume high rates of initial fail
ure are inevitable and acceptable” (Clinton, 1998, p. 311). He praised the Chi
cago public school system as a model of reform, proposing to “ help other
communities follow Chicago’s lead” (as cited in Shipps, Kahne, & Smylie, 1999,
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
p. 518). Cincinnati was also praised as a district where promotion is based on
specific standards, and the President noted that the number of states vowing to
end social promotion continues to increase. No state has a higher profile than
California in its drive to end social promotion.
Chicago Public Schools
In 1987 U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett described the Chi
cago Public Schools (CPS) as the “ worst in America” (Shipps et al., 1999). The
popular media portrayed the CPS as a school system jeopardizing the future of
the city’s children; in 1988 the Illinois legislature passed a reform bill calling for
radical decentralization of the governance structure. This was followed in 1995
by more sweeping reforms, notably the drive to end social promotion. Accord
ing to Shipps et al., the 1988 and 1995 reforms shared common goals central
to many urban school reform initiatives. They were designed to (a) stabilize
and bring political legitimacy to the school system, (b) contribute to city growth,
and (c) improve school performance and student achievement.
While President Clinton and other legislators hailed the CPS as a model
for urban school reform, critics claimed that the plan has undermined teachers’
autonomy and that the use of a single test score for promotional decisions vio
lates professional standards (Roderick, Bryk, Jacob, Easton, & Allensworth,
1999; Shipp et al., 1999). Defenders of the system state that the original re
forms, which led to site-based management, did not have an accountability
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
system that could guarantee that all schools would accept changes. Hess
(1999) argued that, to be successful in reform, all urban schools require some
combination of top-down and bottom-up management. The standards adopted
in 1996 supported the three essential components of the reform effort:
(a) higher teacher expectations for students, (b) use of innovative teaching and
governance methods, and (c) improved instructional quality. Without clear-cut
standards, as designated by the movement to end social promotion, the reform
efforts might have been haphazardly adopted by different schools. In fact,
Hess noted that the CPS is the first system to show concrete evidence linking
school-based management with significant gains in student achievement.
In 1996 the CPS policy to end social promotion was enacted to address
two major issues. First, students were struggling in later grades because they
had been allowed to progress without acquiring the most basic skills. Second,
teachers disclosed a paradox in the reform efforts: “ How could they pursue
higher standards or be accountable for poor student performance if students
did not have the skills to move on to more advanced material?" (Roderick et al.,
1999, p. 4). To address these problems, the CPS used a multifaceted ap
proach which would be employed during the testing year, over the summer,
and during the retention year, with the goal of raising students’ skills to meet
minimum test scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), the criterion for
promotion. The threat of retention was used to motivate children to work
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
harder and to encourage parents to attend more to their children’s school work.
In Chicago, students were given assistance through an after-school program
that focused on core skills in reading and math (Roderick et al.).
A second component of the Chicago reform initiative, and one which has
gained attention in school systems throughout the United States, is the Sum
mer Bridge Program, an intensive program which provides students at risk of
retention with a chance to pass the test cut-off during the summer. The third
feature of the CPS reform is a revision of the way in which retention is practiced
that more consistently addresses the reformers' intended goals. Instead of
simply repeating a grade, resources are allocated to help repeaters to catch up.
Schools where large numbers of children are retained receive extra teachers to
reduce class size. Retained students are required to participate in the after
school program, and the CPS is also experimenting with additional new stra
tegies, including a mid-year retest. Students who pass this mid-year test would
rejoin their age peers at mid-year (Roderick et al., 1999).
Early data from the CPS policy highlighted why retention without addi
tional effort has been so unsuccessful. Students with low scores on both math
and English had tremendous difficulty in catching up, even with additional in
tervention. Simply retaining these students in grade would have all but guaran
teed their subsequent failure. The second chance afforded by Summer Bridge
significantly reduced the number of students who were retained (Roderick et
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
al., 1999). Students who had very low test scores were retained at higher rates
than students with higher scores; however, for grades 6 and 8, students at the
highest risk for retention demonstrated the highest increases. In fact, the pro
portion passing the minimum cut-off increased from 4% to 34% among sixth
graders and from 12% to 49% among eighth graders. The same effect was not
found for third graders.
Roderick et al. (1999) contend that the CPS policy has taken the sizable
pool of children who used to be socially promoted and divided them into three
categories. The first group consists of the substantially higher number of
students who meet the test criteria during the school year. In the second group
are the students who pass after attending the intensive summer program. Al
though the positive results of Summer Bridge are widely as cited, the research
ers observe that students who pass do not necessarily maintain their advan
tage:
It appears that the positive effects of the Summer Bridge program
are not compensating for weak instruction or motivational problems dur
ing the school year. These more marginal students may need extra help
all along the way, an explanation that challenges the assumption that
one-shot interventions are all that students need. (Roderick et al., 1999,
p. 41)
In fact, reformers such as Darling-Hammond continually emphasize the need
for providing students with individualized, high-quality instruction throughout
the school year (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Darling-Hammond & Falk, 1997).
Hattie (1999) stressed the importance of providing students with ongoing
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
feedback that they can use to adapt their performance—a more valuable tool
than relying on test scores.
The third group defined by Roderick et al. (1999) are students who fail to
meet the promotional criteria and who are retained or waived. Critics argue
that “ waiving” promotional standards amounts to no more than social promo
tion. The researchers noted that the proportion of students who fall into this
third category has declined significantly from baseline but that this group con
tinues to struggle. Retained students do no better than those who were so
cially promoted; in fact, third graders do slightly worse. Students retained
under the CPS policy face the negative consequences previously reported and,
despite its success in many areas, the program has not addressed their needs
successfully.
Roderick et al. (1999) concluded that the CPS policy has produced
mixed results. More students meet the promotional criteria, with the Summer
Bridge program the most acclaimed program component. However, the pro
gram fails to address the major factor underlying student success or failure:
the quality of instruction during the regular school year. Teacher expertise has
been found to account for up to 40% of variance in student performance, and it
is especially crucial in the early grades (Darting-Hammond & Falk, 1997). Rod
erick et al. emphasized the need to improve teaching for third grade students in
particular. The success of the CPS policy with eighth graders may reflect their
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
greater capacity to respond to motivational incentives and direct their own
learning. In contrast, third graders rely much more heavily on adults to shape
the quality of their school experience. Placing young students, especially those
at risk, in small classes with expert teachers is repeatedly advocated by school
reformers.
While most of the research focuses on students in grades K-8, Chicago
high school students have not fared as well under the new reforms. Testa,
Sen, and Nawsheen (2000) suggested that, ultimately, the greater success of
students in the lower grades will translate into higher graduation rates (cur
rently about 60%) from Chicago high schools. Under CPS CEO Paul Valias,
high schools are being redesigned to promote student development, and there
has been some increase in graduation rates since 1996 as well as higher
achievement levels in reading and math. According to Valias, one third of the
high schools placed on probation in 1996 have made significant performance
gains. He attributed this to increased accountability, “ which has resulted in
more effective principals, higher teacher moral, and a higher academic level of
entering students" (p. 2).
While Shipp et al. (1999) criticized CPS policy for undermining teachers’
autonomy and professionalism, most sources appear to agree with Valias that
the reforms have improved the morale and performance of teachers and school
leaders. Sebring and Bryk (2000) claimed that it is up to CPS principals to
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
establish a culture of social trust among all stakeholders. According to the
authors, the most effective principals “ are accessible; teachers and parents feel
they ‘really listen’ and that there are opportunities to influence important affairs”
(p. 442). Effective principals encourage teachers to take an active role in
school governance and reform and provide them with the resources necessary
for a high quality classroom. Like Hess (1999), Sebring and Bryk contended
that successful school-based management depends on strong collaborative
efforts that go beyond simplistic measures for decentralizing authority.
California
In 1998 California Governor Pete Wilson proposed reforming the state’s
education code to prohibit promoting students who have not “ achieved a pass
ing score on a statewide assessment” (as cited in Rothstein, 1998, p. 195). He
drew staunch support from Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and then-
superintendent of schools for the LAUSD Ruben Zacarias. Although the plan
to end social promotion was applauded initially, officials in several California
school districts were alarmed to find themselves facing the prospect of retain
ing huge numbers of children.
The LAUSD began with an ambitious standard. Students had to pass
English, math, history, and science, and score above the 36th percentile in
statewide tests (Wood, 2000). Support for this lofty goal waned when district
officials examined how many students might be left back. Some estimates
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
placed the number of potential retainees at half of the district’s more than
700,000 students, attributing the high rate to the fact that more than 50% of
public school children lack English fluency, which would make it difficult for
them to meet the new academic standards (Sanchez, 2000). The newer, mod
ified guidelines reduced the grades for testing to 2 and 8, declaring that only
students who failed English would be left back. Using this new standard, it was
expected that no more than 4,000 eighth graders and 6,000 second graders
would be retained, representing 10% of the students in those grades (Smith &
Sahagun, 2000). While district officials might have considered this figure “ low”
in comparison to the original estimate, many teachers were shocked by the
prospect of 10,000 students being retained, and turned to new strategies to
motivate their own students (Wood, 2000).
Acting superintendent Ramon Cortines responded angrily to the pro
jected figures, which were subsequently retracted. Staff members conceded
that the figures might be far off the mark but declined to say whether they might
be too high or too low (Smith & Sahagun, 2000).
The teachers union objected to the original standards, arguing that its
members were not adequately prepared to handle the difficult, emotionally
charged decisions over which students would have to repeat a grade (Smith &
Sahagun, 2000). Although the use of a standardized measure simplifies the
task of deciding who should be promoted, numerous critics argue against the
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
validity of using a single test score to determine promotion. With the relaxation
of standards, teachers were able to use past test scores to determine which
students required additional help to pass, but many teachers felt that the allot
ted funds for tutoring were insufficient.
The Los Angeles Times conducted a review of the 26 school districts
most affected by the California mandate to end social promotion, reporting that,
while most of the more than 20,000 students at risk of failure improved enough
through summer school or other interventions to advance to the next grade,
thousands did not do so. In Orange County, 5,060 students were retained, the
highest number in the county’s history (Garrison, 2000). Individual districts are
responsible for compiling their own figures on retention, but many districts
showed a radical increase. In Anaheim, for example, 200 students were held
back, compared to only 27 during the past year. In the 34,000-student Saddle
back Unified School District, 420 students were retained in grades K-6, com
pared to 225 in 1999.
Most districts implemented measures for notifying parents of their
children’s risk for failure and establishing summer school programs primarily
focused on bolstering reading skills to help students to pass the examination.
For many students, these efforts were successful. In Buena Park School Dis
trict, 910 students were placed on a “ watch list” in Fall 1999, and only 127 were
retained. In the Newport-Mesa Unified School district, only 50 of 1,000
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students labeled at risk for failure were not promoted (Garrison, 2000). It is
interesting that, despite the expressed distress of many parents over their
children’s grade failure, district officials reported few cases of parents appeal
ing teachers’ decisions.
In Orange County, officials addressed the problem of non-native English
speakers by exempting them from retention if lack of English fluency was the
sole reason that they were behind (Garrison, 2000). In the county’s two largest
districts, Garden Grove and Santa Ana, the program is being introduced gradu
ally over 18 months to give students more chance to catch up. As a result,
Garden Grove actually held back fewer students in 2000 (107) than in 1999
(157). In Santa Ana, 1,893 students were retained, but officials stated that the
number would have been higher had they fully implemented the proposed
standards.
While teachers in Orange County were preparing their at-risk students
for summer programs, more than half of Oakland’s failing students simply did
not attend summer school (May, 1999). Officials in Oakland are examining the
phenomenon to understand why so many students failed to attend classes.
They hope to avoid a repeat of the same occurrence in 2000, but some critics
see Oakland as a preview of what may happen in other districts. According to
Sylvester Hodges (as cited in May, 1999), co-chair of the Task Force on the
Education of African American Students, “ The district kept talking about making
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students accountable for their grades, but the adults aren’t being accountable
by running the program smoothly” (p. A1).
For most students, the summer school program was largely a preventive
measure, but officials are most concerned with the 472 high school seniors
who needed the credits to graduate but still failed to attend (May, 1999). Clear
ly, the program requires revision. In addition to failing to monitor students,
those students who did attend were not told of their status before the school
year began. Reviewing reports from the various school districts, the state of
the new program appears somewhat chaotic. While some disorganization can
be expected in any new program, the California initiative to end social promo
tion suffers from a lack of long-range planning; it has an admirable goal but a
questionable plan for achieving it.
One California district whose efforts to end social promotion reflect
broader reform initiatives is the Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD),
the state's third-largest and fastest-growing urban school district, with a diverse
population of 86,000 K-12 students (Cohn & Cohn, 1998). The first reform
measure consisted of mandatory school uniforms, which resulted in an impres
sive 76% decrease in school crime. According to parents and teachers, stu
dents showed more favorable attitudes toward school and academic activities.
The second initiative, especially significant in view of research confirming the
importance of learning in the early grades, was the establishment of a K-3
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Literacy Initiative. Throughout the K>12 curriculum, learning is supported by a
variety of strategies to enhance learning and increase the competency of stu
dents at risk for failure.
Eighth grade marked a critical point for targeting interventions and es
tablishing standards in the LBUSD (Cohn & Cohn, 1998). Beginning with
eighth grade, middle school students with two or more failing grades in the final
semester spend a minimum of 1 year at a Preparatory Academy instead of
going on to high school. Students are taught in small classes and given special
mentoring and guidance services. Of roughly 450 students enrolled in 1997,
the first year of the program, about 75 proved to be inappropriately placed and
transferred to a more suitable setting, with 275 students eventually qualifying
for the regular high school—a promising start. Once standards for promoting
eighth grade students to high school had been established, a task force was
organized to study options for setting promotion standards for all grades.
Students at risk for nonpromotion are required to participate in intensive
programs targeting the designated skills areas, with all efforts focused on help
ing them to acquire the knowledge that they need to succeed. Especially note
worthy is the fact that decisions for retention are based upon multiple criteria
and are primarily reserved for grades 3,5, and 8—keynote years for standards
and benchmark assessments.
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Standardized Tests as the Promotional Criterion
Numerous sources criticize the use of standardized test scores for mak
ing promotional decisions (“ Agora,” 2000; Darling-Hammond, 1994,1998,
Darling-Hammond & Falk, 1997; Roderick et al., 1999; Shipp et al., 1999).
Even more incensing to many educators is the use of a single test score as the
promotional criterion. Rothstein (2000) criticized this practice, citing evidence
from Stanford professor David Rogosa, who calculated the “ accuracy" of the
tests used in California and other states. According to Rogosa, test scores are
notoriously inconsistent. For example, a fourth grade student whose “ true"
reading score is exactly at grade level (50th percentile) is likely to score either
above the 55th percentile or below the 45th percentile on any given test. In
short, an individual student’s performance is highly variable. Although stan
dardized tests are touted for their high reliability, Rogosa emphasized that few
policy makers realize that “ seemingly high reliability assures only rough accu
racy” (Rothstein, 2000, p. B11). Overall, a single test may be a poor predictor
of a student’s actual level. Thus, such tests are inappropriate as the basis for a
critical decision such as promotion or retention. Standardized tests were de
signed to guide teaching and learning (“ Agora” ; Chen et al., 2000; Darling-
Hammond, 1994). A paradox that has emerged from school reform is that edu
cators consistently challenge the use of standardized tests scores for account
ability purposes on the grounds that they narrow the focus of learning and
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
provide no clear evidence that higher scores lead to higher student achieve
ment. However, policymakers remain adamant in the use of standardized
tests.
The Garfield School in Chicago developed an assessment-based ap
proach that goes far beyond the promotional criteria of CPS reform. As de
scribed by Chen et al. (2000), the Garfield project augmented its analyses of
test scores with surveys, classroom observation, focus groups, and other as
sessment activities designed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the
school’s reading program to create an intervention that strategically targets
problem areas with the goal of developing a stronger program. Teachers’ as
sessments of students did not always concur with test scores. While teachers
often described their students as unprepared or unmotivated, analyses of test
scores targeted reading as a singular weak point. As a whole, students per
formed relatively well on math and writing on standardized tests.
The Garfield program was successful in establishing collaboration
among teachers and improving the quality of classroom learning. In a faculty
survey, 85% of the teachers reported greater knowledge of appropriate strate
gies for their grade level, and observation revealed increased use of a variety
of effective classroom strategies. Teachers held meetings frequently and es
tablished a collegial environment to guide teaching. The only negative aspect
of the program was an overemphasis on test scores and practice. While
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers spent considerable effort on preparing students for tests, this served
to pull students away from the regular curriculum and actually diminish motiva
tion and energy to leam. Overall, the Garfield program was a success. Chen
et al. (2000) concluded that reform efforts can be successful only with teachers’
active participation. Teachers' professional accountability is fostered not
through external standards but through teamwork and professional collabora
tion.
Consistent with this approach, teachers interviewed by Salpeter and
Foster (2000) believed that the most successful schools integrate basic skills
within a comprehensive program that incorporates arts, technology, and other
areas that are not tested for promotion. Like the Garfield staff, these educators
criticized overemphasis on test scores for forcing teachers to ignore valuable
curriculum areas because of high-stakes testing. Ultimately, this approach will
undermine the quality of students’ learning.
Interventions for Assisting Underachieving
Students
Chicago’s Summer Bridge program is probably the most renowned in
tervention in the nation. As a result, many school districts have adopted or are
in the process of adopting similar programs. In Minneapolis, where a highly
mobile student population increases the number of students who do not per
form at grade level, summer school has become mandatory for struggling
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students. Each school plans its own summer program and schedule, and the
program has met with considerable enthusiasm from students, parents, and
teachers. Denver, Colorado; Norfolk, Virginia; Springfield, Massachusetts; and
East Baton Rouge, Louisiana are examples of other districts who have man
dated summer school for at-risk students, with varying responses from stake
holders (Chmelynski, 1998). On the whole, other summer programs tend to be
more flexible than Chicago’s Summer Bridge program, which is specifically fo
cused on remedial skills, while other programs include components for charac
ter development, self-esteem building, or similar interventions. Although cost is
often a major barrier to the initial implementation, Chmelynski contended that,
in the long run, districts actually save money, since sending children to summer
school is far less expensive than retention.
For children in the early grades, many reformers advocate multi-age
classrooms, which would abolish the practice of retention in the early grades:
When taught by skillful teachers, classes that include students of differ
ent ages and grades can provide structures that do not penalize
students for their natural variations in pace, learning style, and perform
ance. Particularly in the elementary years, when the range of develop
ment among students is most uneven, multigrade classrooms in which
students stay with the same teacher and classmates for more than a
year can enhance learning by ensuring that students get more sustained
support from teacher and peers. (Darling-Hammond & Falk, 1997, p.
194)
Darling-Hammond and Falk (1997) cited evidence that showed that chil
dren in multi-age classrooms demonstrated academic progress that equaled or
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
surpassed that of peers in traditional classes. In addition, they show higher
self-concepts, more favorable attitudes toward school, and better social skills.
While research on multi-age classes tends to focus on very young children,
McCarthy et al. (1996) described an interdisciplinary multi-age program for
children ages 8 to 10 implemented by the Travis Heights Elementary School in
Austin, Texas. The program derived from collaborative efforts between the
school and university researchers; it makes use of many components of school
reform which have shown favorable results: collaborative learning, team-
teaching, small group work, dividing curriculum into interdisciplinary units, and
integrating the arts with academic content areas. A large Hispanic population
also made bilingual inclusion an essential facet of the program.
McCarthy et al. (1996) noted that, without the multi-age program, some
of their diverse group of learners might have been retained while others would
have been placed in special education or bilingual programs. The authors
identified diversity and flexibility as the cornerstones of multi-age grouping.
Rather than limiting educational goals as a focus on test scores tends to do,
the arrangement allowed for an in-depth exploration of topics. Consistent with
the assertion that students in multi-age groups have better social skills
(Darling-Hammond & Falk, 1997), conflict resolution was woven into the pro
gram. The students were thoroughly engaged by the program and mastered
the curriculum with the teachers’ ongoing support. Perhaps most important,
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
children who would have been labeled “ at risk” avoided the negative conse
quences of retention or special education and came to view themselves as
successful learners capable of achieving academic goals.
The positive results of Head Start (Entwisle & Alexander, 1998) have
inspired researchers to examine similar preschool programs designed for low-
income children. Results from the Chicago Child-Parent Centers show that
participation in either the extended program (5 or 6 years) or the preschool
program significantly reduced the risk of school dropout (Temple, Reynolds, &
Miedel, 2000). The effect was stronger for students who completed the ex
tended program, leading the researchers to recommend that programs fash
ioned after Head Start be extended into the primary grades.
In Pennsylvania, the Instructional Support Team of educators has been
working since 1990 to reduce rates of retention and dropout by collaborative
efforts to bridge special and regular education. Team members work with stu
dents who have been identified as eligible for special education placement to
help restructure the child’s learning experience so he or she can leam in the
regular classroom. Although team membership varies from school to school,
all teams include the principal, the student’s regular teacher, and a support
teacher. Parents’ participation is not required but is encouraged. Kovaleski,
Tucker, and Stevens (1996) outlined the five basic components of the program
as (a) collaboration and team building, (b) instructional assessment,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(c) instructional adaptation, (d) student discipline, and (e) student assistance
strategies. Of special significance to the present study, over a 3-year period,
the researchers observed up to 67% decline in retention rates. This decrease
is expected to reduce the rates of dropout in later school years.
Conclusion
The national movement to eliminate social promotion presents a trou
bling paradox for educators. While it is indeed a desirable goal, research in
dicates that it should best be achieved by meticulous, long-range planning, not
by sudden, haphazard efforts presenting students with the ultimatum that they
pass a standardized test or be held back. In California the rush to abolish
social promotion has ironically led to a lowering of standards and a waiving of
test scores for many students, which can be construed as simply social promo
tion in a different form. Furthermore, distinct differences in perspective emerge
between policymakers who unanimously seem to favor using standardized
tests for promotional criteria and education reformers who criticize the reliability
of the rests in evaluating students’ knowledge and who argue that a narrow
focus on test scores undermines the quality of education—the reverse of what
high-stakes testing is meant to accomplish.
Research on retention dates back nearly 100 years; it consistently re
ports negative effects, including significantly higher risk of school dropout.
Social promotion also raises the risk of dropout, as students enter higher
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
grades without the basic skills need for mastering complex subject areas. At
present, the Chicago Public School system is held as the model for ending
social promotion. Although the program has not been successful on all mea
sures, it has significantly reduced rates of retention among sixth and eighth
graders and, less notably, among third graders. Its most successful compo
nent is the Summer Bridge program, which is being adapted in some form by
school systems throughout the United States. Despite its shortcomings, Chi
cago stands out for its remarkable progress since it was condemned in 1988 as
the nation’s worst school system. Even the shortcomings of the CPS have
been valuable, as analyses of program weaknesses can be used to direct im
provement efforts of the CPS and other school systems.
Among the interventions to prevent retention, summer programs offer
considerable promise, as do multi-age classes in the elementary grades and
programs that bridge special and regular education. Early intervention strate
gies based on the Head Start model consistently reduce retention and dropout
rates, and there is evidence that these programs are even more successful
when extended through the primary grades.
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study describes the way in which districts in California have begun
to implemented policy to meet the intent of the recently enacted legislation (AB
1626, AB 1639, and SB 1370) to end social promotion and provide supplemen
tal support for students retained or at-risk of being retained. The study also
seeks to identify intervention practices used in school districts prior to new leg
islation and to compare these practices with intervention strategies that districts
are planning to implement as a result of the new legislation.
Instrumentation
This descriptive study uses survey research methods because they are
efficient and accurate with well-educated informants. A single questionnaire
was developed to collect information from district superintendents or their
designees.
The survey was divided into three different parts. Part I was designed to
collect information about the district’s past retention practices, including previ
ous retention rates and past intervention strategies to assist students who had
been recommended for retention. When specific examples were presented,
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
superintendents were asked to state whether an intervention strategy was
optional or required for identified students. Superintendents were further
asked to state or estimate the number of students who had been retained at
specific grade levels during the prior year. Superintendents were provided a
space to indicate that “ no records were maintained.”
Part II of the survey asked superintendents to identify how the district
developed their promotion and retention policy. They were asked to check
u yes” or “ no” on whether they had used a committee in the development of their
new policy. If they indicated that they had used a committee, they were to
place a check by all participating members from a list of possible staff and com
munity members. Space was provided to list any other committee members
not identified on the given list. Part II of the survey also included a true-or-false
series of questions asking superintendents to state which students would be
included in their policy and whether the policy would go beyond the minimum
standards set by the State Superintendent of Education. Respondents were
asked to list the factors that would be considered in the identification of stu
dents identified as “ at-risk” of retention.
Part III was designed to identify instructional strategies that districts
would implement as a result of the new legislation. Superintendents were to
indicate from a list of potential intervention programs which programs they
planned to use and whether these were new programs or an expansion of
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
existing programs. They were also asked to indicate when and who would
provide the intervention for identified students. Space was provided for inter
vention strategies not listed. Part III also asked superintendents to indicate
whether they would actually require a student to be retained at grade level or
would make this optional. Superintendents were asked to indicate what other
services would be available to students recommended for retention and wheth
er these services would be required or optional. Specifically, the survey was
developed to collect data to answer each of the following questions:
1. What are the current retention rates in California school districts?
2. When students were retained (prior to AB 1626), were other educa
tional opportunities available? If so, were they optional or required?
3. What factors were used to determine whether a student was to be
retained?
4. Does or will the new policy include kindergarten students and first-
grade students?
5. Will reading be the primary factor in identifying primary students at
risk of retention?
6. Will SAT 9 scores be the only factor to identify at-risk students?
7. What intervention strategies will be used to assist identified stu
dents?
8. When will intervention strategies/programs be offered?
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9. What personnel will provide the intervention strategies?
10. Once a student has been recommended for retention, will other
services be available? If so, will they be optional or required?
The survey was reviewed by a university professor and piloted with five
administrators in three southern California school districts to test its validity.
After responding to the questions, the administrators discussed items regard
ing their pertinence and wording. Although these respondents expressed no
concerns about the wording of the questions, they raised concerns about the
timing and sample size. The final version of the survey, used to collect for the
study, appears in Appendix B.
Population and Sample
In spring 1999, many districts were just beginning to develop their pro
motion and retention policies. The piloting administrators believed that many
districts would not have made significant progress toward new policy develop
ment and that a random sampling would not produce enough meaningful data
to formulate appropriate conclusions.
School districts in California have three basic configurations: unified or
union-elementary or union-high school. Unified districts include all grade
levels, kindergarten through 12th grade. Union-elementary districts include
kindergarten through sixth grade or kindergarten through eighth grade. Union-
high school districts include grades 9 through 12 or grades 8-12.
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The pilot study participants also raised concerns about the relevance of
the study to very small districts and union-high school districts. For school
districts with a size of fewer than 100 students, interventions such as summer
school and before- and after-school tutoring were not considered to be feasi
ble. Multigrade or multi-age classrooms were probably not an option, as most
of the small schools used these classrooms as part of the normal structure.
Consequently, districts with a population of fewer than 100 students were
dropped from the study. In addition, the new legislation targeted only grades
kindergarten through eighth grade. Because no meaningful data would come
from high school districts, they were dropped as well. Thus, it was determined
that the sampling frame would include all California school districts with a
population greater than 100 students and serving students in kindergarten
through eighth grade.
The California Public Schools Directory (California State Department of
Education, 1998) was used to identify all California union-elementary and uni
fied districts that met these criteria. This resulted in the identification of 482
union-elementary districts and 313 unified districts. The 795 districts included
in the study represented all California counties and served a diverse demo
graphic and ethnographic student population.
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Collection Procedures
The surveys were printed and number coded to permit follow-up mailing
to nonrespondents. A brief introductory letter (Appendix A) explaining the
rationale for the study and assuring anonymity was mailed to the superinten
dents, or their designees, in all 795 districts on June 8,1999, along with a
stamped return envelope.
By August 1999,197 districts had responded to the survey. A second
mailing occurred in September 1999 and resulted in 57 more surveys. The
final number of 254 returned surveys represents a return rate of 31.9%.
Responding districts were grouped by system, either unified or union-
elementary, and by student population: 101-1,000; 1,001-5,000; 5,001-10,000;
10,001-25,000; 25,001-50,000; and 50,001 or more. Union-elementary results
are presented in Table 1. Unified results are presented in Table 2. Totals for
both union-elementary and unified are presented in Table 3.
Data Analysis
Survey responses were coded numerically and entered into a computer
database when received. Once all data were entered, frequency counts were
generated for all items using computer statistical software. To address rela
tionships between district type and intervention plans, data were grouped by
district type, and frequencies were compared using contingency tables. The
results of these analyses are reported in Chapter 4.
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1
Union-Elementarv Respondents to Surveys
District size
Number in
sample
Number re
turned %
101-1,000 265 75 28.3
1,000-5,000 152 44 28.9
5,001-10,000 47 19 40.4
10,001-25,000 17 3 17.6
25,001-50,000 1 1 100.0
50,001 or more 0 0 0.0
Total 482 142 29.5
Table 2
Unified ResDondents to Survevs
Number in Number re
District size sample turned %
101-1,000 43 15 34.8
1,000-5,000 103 28 27.1
5,001-10,000 66 30 45.4
10,001-25,000 68 23 33.8
25,001-50,000 25 14 56.0
50,001 or more 8 2 25.0
Total 313 112 35.7
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3
Total Respondents to Surveys
District size
Number in
sample
Number re
turned %
101-1,000 308 90 29.2
1,000-5,000 255 72 28.2
5,001-10,000 113 49 43.3
10,001-25,000 85 26 30.6
25,001-50,000 26 15 57.7
50,001 or more 8 2 25.0
Total 795 254 31.9
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER4
THE FINDINGS
The findings are presented according to four research questions:
1. What are the current retention rates of California school districts?
2. Prior to AB 1626, what criteria had California school districts used to
determine student retention or student promotion?
3. Will California school district use results on the Standardized Testing
and Reporting (STAR) program as their only indicator of academic achieve
ment for students? For California school districts using other indicators of aca
demic achievement for students, what will those other indicators be?
4. What services will California school districts make available to stu
dents identified as being at risk for retention, and will these services be differ
ent from current services available to students?
Question 1: Current Retention Rates
Question 1 asked: What are the current retention rates of California
school districts?
The survey asked school districts to state the approximate number of
students retained in the prior year at each grade level, kindergarten through
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
eighth grade. Of the 254 school districts responding, 12.5% of the unified dis
tricts and 5% of the elementary districts stated that they had no students re
tained at any grade level. Of the 142 elementary school districts that re
sponded to the survey, 81.2% reported at least one student retained at grade
level, kindergarten through eighth grade. Of the 112 unified school districts
that responded to the survey, 58% reported at least one retention at grade
level, kindergarten through eighth grade. Of the responding districts, 29.5% of
the unified districts and 13.4% of the elementary districts reported that no re
tention data were available. Of the districts that tracked retention, Table 4
demonstrates the percentage of districts reporting at least one retention for
each grade level.
Table 4
Percentage of School Districts Reporting Retentions bv Grade Level
Grade level
District K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Elementary 86 62 41 26 24 20 15 20 25
Unified 83 77 66 60 43 40 23 26 29
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The highest number retentions by those districts reporting retentions
were at the kindergarten level. The number of districts reporting retentions
then declined steadily for both elementary and unified districts. The lowest
number of reporting school districts was at the sixth grade level for both ele
mentary and unified school districts. There were slight increases in the number
of districts, both elementary and unified, reporting retentions at the seventh-
and eighth-grade levels.
A similar trend emerged when actual rates of student retained were
used. These retention rates were calculated by dividing the number of stu
dents retained by the number of students at that grade level for each type of
district. The number of students retained was obtained through the survey and
the number of students at each grade level was obtained through the Ed-Data
web site (http://www.eddata.org).
Table 5 reports grade-level retention rates by district type and reports
grade-level totals as well as an overall retention rate. One very large super
unified school district responded with specific retention numbers for each grade
level. The data were separated from the other unified districts because the
super unified district’s retention rate unduly magnified the overall retention
rates.
Both California elementary and unified school districts retained students
at similar rates. Overall, retention rates were less than 1%. The highest rate of
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5
Retention Rates for California School Districts
Grade level
District K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
Elementary 1.53 1.02 0.56 0.29 0.22 0.27 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.38
Unified 1.83 1.54 0.92 0.60 0.30 0.37 0.33 0.62 0.45 0.78
Super
Unified 0.60 1.60 1.10 0.80 0.50 0.30 1.70 2.00 1.90 1.10
Total 1.19 1.46 0.94 0.64 0.36 0.34 0.88 1.12 1.00 0.88
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
retention for both elementary and unified school districts was at the kindergar
ten level, followed by first grade. The super unified district had a retention rate
at the first grade level comparable with the other unified and elementary school
districts, although the super district’s kindergarten retention rate was signifi
cantly lower. Both elementary and unified school districts retained slightly
more than 1% of kindergarten and first-grade students. Retention rates de
creased for both elementary and unified school districts, although the decrease
for elementary school districts was slightly more rapid than that for the unified
school districts. The super unified district’s highest retention rates occurred at
the seventh- and eighth-grade levels. The unified districts showed a slight
increase in the number of students retained at the seventh- and eighth-grade
levels.
Question 2: Prior Retention and Promotion
Criteria
Question 2 was: Prior to AB 1626, what criteria had California school
districts used to determine student retention or student promotion?
Of the 254 school districts that returned the survey, 237 (93.3%) re
sponded to the questions regarding criteria used prior to AB 1626 to determine
student retention or student promotion. Answers were similar for elementary
and unified districts. The decision to promote or retain a student was left to the
discretion of the principal in 37.4% of the districts responding to the survey. In
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55.9% of the responding districts, the deciding factor of promotion was a result
of the student meeting district criteria for promotion. The criteria most often
cited for student promotion were teacher recommendation and student perfor
mance. Teacher recommendation for promotion or retention was cited on
84.5% of the surveys, while student performance was cited on 74.6% of the
surveys. Parental agreement was important to 82.4% of the responding school
districts. Approximately 40% of the districts responded by stating that the re
sults of achievement tests were a factor in determining student retention or pro
motion.
Table 6 illustrates factors that districts utilized when determining which
students should be promoted and which students should be retained. It is in
teresting to note that only 20.4% of the responding districts cited a student’s
categorical placement as a factor in deciding promotion or retention, while stu
dent characteristics were cited on 57.7% of the surveys. It would appear that
the districts considered student characteristics such as maturity and size of a
student at a higher rate than they consider a student’s placement in special
education classes when determining retention or promotion.
Question 1 focused on the retention rates of California school districts.
The results indicated that the highest rates of retention were at the kindergar
ten and first-grade level. Question 2 focuses on factors used to determine who
should be promoted and who should be retained. Approximately one third of
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6
Influential Factors for Retention/Promotion
Retention/promotion factor %
Teacher recommendation 84.5
Parental agreement 82.4
Academic performance 74.6
Student characteristics 57.7
Achievement tests 39.4
Prior retention 38.7
Score on a retention measure 37.3
Grade level of the student 32.4
Categorical placement of student 20.4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the districts responded by stating that a child’s grade level was a factor in de
termining whether a student should be retained or promoted. Prior retention
was a factor for 38.7% of the districts responding to the survey. These two fac
tors could be used to explain the lower rates of retention as students progress
through the grades. Schools that focus retention on younger students would
have lower retention rates as the grade levels increase, believing that it is
better to retain students early. Districts who consider students’ prior retention
would also have lower numbers of retained students, as these districts have
probably already retained the student earlier in the student’s school career.
Question 3: STAR and Other Indicators of
Achievement
Question 3 was: Will California school district use results on the STAR
as their only indicator of academic achievement for students? For California
school districts using other indicators of academic achievement for students,
what will those other indicators be?
Districts responded overwhelmingly in favor of using indicators other
than the state testing program to measure academic achievement for students.
Of the 254 school districts responding to the survey, 247 (97.3%) responded to
the question on using the state test as the only indicator of student academic
achievement. Elementary districts responded at a rate of 95.1 % declining to
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
support the state testing results as the sole indicator of academic achievement,
and unified districts responded negatively at a rate of 93.8%.
According to the current study’s survey, California school leaders re
sisted using the results of the state test as the sole indicator of student readi
ness for the next grade level. With an overall negative response of 94.5% for
using the state testing program results, clearly both elementary and unified
school districts supported the use of other indicators to measure student aca
demic achievement.
The unified and elementary districts also responded similarly regarding
the indicators that they intend to use to measure student academic achieve
ment. The list of academic indicators planned for both elementary and unified
districts ranked identically. The top indicator for measuring student academic
achievement for both elementary and unified districts was student performance
or student grades. A total of 59.1% of the responding districts indicated that
student performance would be a factor in determining a student’s academic
achievement. A total of 53.9% of the responding districts indicated that they
would administer their own proficiency tests to assess student academic
achievement. Teacher recommendation and the use of multiple measures
ranked very close as indicators of student achievement by the responding
districts. Table 7 lists the indicators that elementary and unified districts
planned to use to determine a student’s academic achievement level.
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7
Academic Indicators for Determining Retention/Promotion, bv Percentage
Indicator Elementary Unified Total
Student performance 56.0 62.5 59.1
District test 54.2 53.6 53.9
Teacher recommendation 41.5 37.5 39.8
Multiple measures 38.0 36.6 37.4
Other 23.9 27.7 25.6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Of the 94.5% of the districts indicating the need to use other factors in
determining academic achievement, 16.5% listed only one factor. When only
one academic factor was listed, the one most often cited was “ multiple mea
sures.” This choice was listed on 40% of the 16.5% of the districts listing only
one academic indicator. The next factor, when listed alone, was student per
formance: 24% of the 16.5% of school districts listing only one academic
indicator of student achievement. Of the 94.5% of the districts indicating the
need to use other factors in determining academic achievement, 30.0% listed
two factors. When two indicators were listed, the most often cited pair of fac
tors (37.0% of the districts) consisted of student performance and student re
sults on district-developed tests. While only 37.4% of all of the responding
districts indicated the use of multiple measures as an indicator of student
achievement, 90% responded by either listing multiple measures separately or
choosing some combination of other academic indicators that might be used as
a multiple measure assessment.
Question 4: Services Available to At-Risk
Students
Question 4 was: What services will California school districts make
available to students identified as being at risk of retention and will these ser
vices be different from current sen/ices available to students?
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The survey asked the districts to respond to questions concerning the
types of services that the district provided to students who had been recom
mended for retention prior to the commencement of AB 1626. Nearly two
thirds (65.7%) of the districts responding to the survey stated that a student
would be retained once the student had meet the criteria for retention. Prior to
the new legislation, tutoring services were required in only 9.1% of all reporting
districts, while nearly 50% of the districts made tutoring an optional service for
students recommended for retention. In 42.5% of the responding districts,
tutoring services was not available so it was not an option for students being
recommended for retention. For students being retained or at risk of retention,
only 21.6% of the reporting districts made summer school a requirement, while
just over 50% of the districts offered summer school as an option. Alternative
classrooms such as multi-age classrooms and transition classrooms were
available in approximately one third of the surveyed school districts. Because
of the size of some districts, for 3.9% of the reporting districts only multi-age or
combination classrooms were available for students.
Districts were asked to respond to questions concerning their plans to
provide services to students who were at risk of retention or who had been rec
ommended for retention as a result of AB 1626. As a result of the new legisla
tion, school districts will be requiring more students to participate in programs
designed to improve their academic performance. When a student has been
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
recommended for retention, approximately the same number of school districts
(61.4% of the responding districts) plan to require retention. Prior to AB 1626,
65.7% of the responding districts had retained qualified students. The plan for
most school districts was to require students to participate in greater numbers
in before and after school tutoring programs and in district summer school pro
grams. The number of districts who planned to require participation in tutoring
programs has risen from 9.1% to 45.3% of responding school districts. Re
quired participation in summer school programs for identified retention students
was also planned by school districts, increasing from 21.6% to 62.6%. Table 8
reflects the planned changes for required programs for students recommended
for retention in school districts responding to the survey.
Table 8
Changes in Required Programs
Program Prior to AB 1626
As result of
AB 1626 Difference
Retained 65.7% 61.4% - 4.3%
Tutoring 9.1% 45.3% + 36.2%
Summer school 21.6% 62.6% + 41.0%
Multi-age 3.9% 3.9% 0.0%
With the exception of multi-age classrooms, the design of the other pro
grams is to provide students with extra time with the curriculum. Retention at
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
grade level provides students with an additional year at the given grade level,
tutoring programs give additional time before and/or after school, and summer
school provides for an extended school year. Multi-age classrooms provide a
structure different from that of the student’s regular school day. While no
change was demonstrated in the number of districts requiring multi-age class
rooms, there was a change in the number of districts making multi-age class
rooms an option for retained students. The number of school districts planning
to implement multi-age classrooms as an option rose from 25.2% to 34.6% of
the responding school districts as a result of the new legislation.
The increase in the percentage of school districts considering multi-age
classroom as an intervention program is a strategy supported by the literature
(Tanner & Galis, 1997). Multi-age classrooms provide students the opportunity
to make continuous progress over a longer period of time. Continuous prog
ress programs provide students a greater opportunity to experience the curricu
lum in a more meaningful and a more developmentally appropriate manner.
The primary focus of the new legislation is to provide support for stu
dents who are achieving a certain level of success. School districts have cre
ated the opportunity for students to interact more with a given curriculum, but
districts vary greatly on what the curriculum should be. The new legislation has
made the focus for the younger students reading, and for the older students
reading is also important, along with the other language arts and mathematics.
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Although the new law allows school districts to expand the scope of identifica
tion and intervention beyond just reading for the younger students, many dis
tricts plan to stay with the guidelines presented by the state. Districts respond
ing to the survey stated overwhelmingly that reading will be the primary focus of
the identification process as well as the focus of the intervention programs for
student between grades two and three as well as for students between grades
3 and 4. More than 90% of the responding school districts planned to make
reading their main focus of identification of at-risk students between grades 2
and 3 as well as students between grades 3 and 4.
When districts were asked what intervention program(s) they would use
to assist their identified students, no clear systematic program was consistently
mentioned. Reading Recovery was indicated as a program available or
planned to be developed by 48% of the responding districts, but this program is
primarily used as a first-grade intervention program and is not generally used
for older students. The Success for All program was cited on 21.6% of the sur
veys returned by the responding school districts. Direct Instruction programs
were mentioned by 22.4% of the responding districts as programs that they
used or planned to use as intervention programs for students who have been
or are at risk of being retained. Nearly half (48%) of the responding districts in
dicated that they would use district-developed programs to meet the needs of
their at-risk or retained students. Table 9 reflects district responses to the
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
intervention programs that they planned to use with their identified at-risk stu
dents.
Table 9
Intervention Programs for Identified At-Risk Stu
dents
Intervention program %
Reading Recovery 48.0
District-developed 48.0
Other programs 30.7
Direct instruction programs 22.4
Success for All 21.6
The other programs, cited by 30.7% of the responding school districts,
consisted of a variety of published programs and services. Programs such as
R.E.A.C.H., Reading Renaissance, and Project Read were cited. Districts
made reference to the use of outside tutoring service such as the Sylvan
Learning Center to assist in meeting the needs of their at-risk students. Many
districts had yet to decide what intervention program they were going to imple
ment, and 11.4% of all responding school districts stated that they were still
investigating or did not respond to the questions.
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary of Findings
Districts responding to the survey planned to go beyond the guidelines
set by the AB 1626 by including grades not specified in the law. The law re
quires districts to develop policies for retention and promotion of students be
ginning with students who are between the second and third grades. When
districts were asked whether their new policy would include kindergarten stu
dents, 66.1% of the responding school districts indicated that their policy would
include kindergarten students. The districts indicating that their policies would
include first-grade students climbed to 71.3% of the responding school districts
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents a summary of the study, including a statement of
the problem, a description of the methodology, and a summary of the findings.
Conclusions are drawn from these findings, recommendations are presented
based on the study, and recommendations for further research are suggested.
Summary
The Problem
The practice known as “ social promotion” has recently come under fire
from business leaders and politicians. Social promotion is used by many
schools to promote underachieving students to the next grade despite the stu
dents’ lack of success at their current grade level. Overwhelming research
data clearly indicate that retention of students at grade level has no positive
effect on student achievement (Meisels & Liaw, 1993; Shepard & Smith, 1986).
Social promotion has created a national concern for many. The result has
been that many students have not been held to an achievement level neces
sary for success in today’s society.
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The concern has turned into a national movement to toughen the aca
demic standards for all students. Many states have mandated testing and
require students to reach specific levels before allowing them to move to the
next grade level. The California Department of Education has long resisted
recommending the end of social promotion. In its 1992 publication It’ s Elemen
tary, the Department recommended that schools develop alternatives to reten
tion. However, with the enactment of AB 1626, California has joined the na
tional movement to end social promotion. The state enacted two pieces of leg
islation (AB 1639 and SB 1370) to support AB 1626. This legislative package
requires school districts throughout the state to develop specific policies and
guidelines to identify students at specific grade levels who would be at risk of
retention. School districts must notify parents and must provide the opportunity
for intervention to improve student performance. If intervention strategies fail
to bring student performance levels to minimum levels set by the district, the
child must be retained. The new laws give some discretion to the child’s teach
er, as the teacher could decide that retention would not be the appropriate for
the student. The teacher must state in writing the reason(s) that retention
would be inappropriate.
The new legislation required schools to develop new retention policies
and new strategies to assist students failing to meet an expected level of per
formance. California schools are now required to provide intervention
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
programs for underachieving students and must retain students who fail to
make the necessary progress as determined by guidelines set be the district.
There were two sets of purposes of this study. The first was to develop
a history of the rate of retentions in the state and the criteria used to retain stu
dents, as well as the intervention programs in place prior to the new legislation.
The second set of purposes was to identify any changes in the criteria to iden
tify at-risk students and any changes in services for identified students as a
result of the new legislation.
In this study, it was found that California elementary and unified school
districts retained students at similar rates. Overall, retention rates were less
than 1%. The highest rate of retention for both elementary and unified school
districts was at the kindergarten level, followed by first grade. Both elementary
and unified school districts retained slightly more than 1% of kindergarten and
first grade students. Retention rates decreased for both elementary and uni
fied districts, although the decrease for elementary school districts was slightly
more rapid than that for the unified school districts. The unified districts
showed a slight increase in the number of students retained at the seventh-
and eighth-grade levels.
The results are similar to the results found in the literature. A study of
California retention rates by Schwager, Mitchell, Mitchell, and Hecht (1992)
demonstrated the same trend of decreasing numbers of retention as a student
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
moved from kindergarten through the sixth grade. In their examination of Cali
fornia district policies, they found that most districts explicitly limited retention to
specific grades or to a number of times that a student could be retained. They
concluded from their examination of district policies and the decreasing reten
tion rates between kindergarten and sixth grade that districts believed that re
tention was more effective in the primary grades.
The National Research Council (Heubert & Hauser, 1999) gathered re
tention rates for California for the 1988/89 academic year. Their retention rates
were similar to those reported by Schwager et al. and the present study. They
found the same higher level of retention rates in the kindergarten and first-
grade levels, decreasing to the sixth grade. They found a similar increase in
the retention rate for seventh and eighth grade students over sixth grade, as
did the present study.
New criteria developed by districts indicated their interest in continuing
to focus on kindergarten and first grade, even though the state required poli
cies only for second grade and above. Nearly two thirds of the districts sur
veyed indicated plans to include kindergartners, and three quarters planned to
include first graders in their retention policies.
This extension to younger grades offers increased opportunities for in
tervention services. Such services as individualized reading instruction may be
critical to long-term success. Reading Recovery and Success for All were
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mentioned most often as intervention strategies by districts who responded to
the survey.
Reading Recovery was indicated as a program available or planned to
be developed by 48% of the responding districts. This program is an intense,
one-on-one tutoring session for first-grade students. Students receive daily
tutoring instruction until they reach an independent reading level comparable to
that of their classroom peers. The 30-minute sessions last, on average, 17 to
18 weeks. The strength of the program is the continual interaction that the
Reading Recovery teacher has with the student. The interaction is an ongoing
dialog between the teacher and student consisting of feedback and reinforce
ment of student learning (Fountas & Pinned, 1996).
The Success for All program was cited on 21.6% of the surveys returned
by the responding school districts. Success for All is a schoolwide program
designed to ensure that all students learn to read. Students are organized by
their ability during reading instruction, with assessment being done on a regular
basis (usually every 8 weeks) and reorganization of students being done based
on the assessments. Students receive one-on-one tutoring from teachers and
trained staff members. Parents are provided with the opportunity to receive ad
ditional information on how they can assist their children. Pre-kindergarten
programs are used to assist the school's preschool population to acquire
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
language and pre-reading skills before the child actually begins kindergarten
(American Institutes for Research, 1999).
An instructional strategy highly supported by the literature (Darling-
Hammond & Falk, 1997; Tanner & Galis, 1997) but rarely mentioned by re
sponding districts is the strategy of multi-age classrooms. Multi-age class
rooms provide a different structure to the student’s regular school day. No
change was found in the number of districts requiring multi-age classrooms;
however, there was a change in the number of districts making multi-age class
rooms an option for retained students.
The unique difference to California's effort to end social promotion is the
inclusion of remedial programs for at-risk students. Although a majority of the
studies have concluded that retention does not work, few studies have dis
cussed the impact of remedial programs for students in danger of being re
tained (Johnston, 1998; Owings & Magliaro, 1998).
Methodology
The methodology of this descriptive study was survey research. The
study surveyed superintendents of all California’s unified and elementary
school district with a population of over 100 students. A single questionnaire
was developed to collect information about the districts’ current intervention
practices and how they might change as a result of the new legislation. The
survey was divided into three parts. Part I was designed to collect data about
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the district's retention rate and strategies used to assist low-achieving students
prior to the new laws. Part II was designed to identify how students would be
identified as at risk as a result of the new laws. Part III was designed to identify
intervention strategies that the district would implement as a result of the new
laws.
To answer the questions of the study, information was tabulated and
presented in frequency counts and percentages. Results were displayed in
tables.
Selected Findings
Sixty-five of 112 unified districts and 115 of 142 elementary districts re
ported at least one student retention.
Of the districts reporting at least one retention, over 80% reported reten
tions at the kindergarten level, with the percentage dropping through sixth
grade and increasing slightly at seventh grade. The percentages were consis
tent in both the unified and elementary districts. Overall retention rates were
less than 1%. The highest rate of retention for both elementary and unified
districts was at the kindergarten level, followed by first grade.
Over 84% of the districts reported teacher recommendations as the
greatest influence on actually retaining students prior to the legislative package
(AB 1626, AB 1639, and SB 1370). Less than 40% of the districts cited teacher
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
recommendation as an indicator for determining retention following the enact
ment of the new legislation.
Well over 90% of the districts stated that they would not use the results
of state testing as the only indicator of student achievement. Over 80% of the
districts reported using more than one academic indicator to determine aca
demic achievement. Of the 16% who indicated only one indicator of achieve
ment, 40% listed multiple measures as their one indicator. Student
performance (grades) was cited by nearly 60% of the districts and results of
district tests were cited by 54% of the districts as indicators for determining re
tention. Students required to attend summer school went from about 22% to
nearly 63%, as a result of the new legislation. Tutoring programs increased
from 9% to over 45% following implementation of the new legislation.
Reading Recovery and district developed programs were listed by 48%
of the districts as the intervention programs that the district planned to imple
ment to assist their at-risk students. Sixty-six percent of the districts indicated
that their policy would include kindergarten students. This number was 71 %
when districts for first grade students.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are based upon the findings of the study.
1. Current retention rates demonstrate that California school districts
retain the greatest number of students in kindergarten and first grade and that
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
number decreases as the students move through sixth grade. The results of
this study are similar to the results found in the literature. A study of California
retention rates by Schwager et al. (1992) demonstrated the same trend of de
creasing numbers of retention as a student moved from Kindergarten through
the sixth grade. In their examination of California district policies, they found
that most districts explicitly limited retention to specific grades or to a number of
times that a student could be retained. They concluded from their examination
of district policies and from the state’s decreasing retention rates between
kindergarten and sixth grade that districts believed that retention is more effec
tive in the primary grades. Their study did not include seventh and eighth
grades.
The National Research Council (Heubert & Hauser, 1999) gathered re
tention rates for California for the 1988/89 school year, including figures for
seventh and eighth grades. Their retention rates were similar to those reported
by Schwager et al. and the current study. They found the same higher level of
retention rates in the kindergarten and first-grade levels, which decreased
toward the sixth grade. They found an increase in the retention rate for sev
enth and eighth grades over sixth grade, as did the present study.
2. The focus for school districts is on providing intervention opportuni
ties for students before automatically retaining students. Districts are aggres
sively increasing intervention opportunities for underachieving students before
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
considering automatic retention. From the findings of the study, intervention
strategies were rising while the requirement of automatic retention was drop
ping. Prior to the new legislation, the number of school districts offering inter
vention strategies such as tutoring and summer school rose 40%, while the
number of districts requiring retention dropped from 65.7% to 61.4%.
3. Districts plan to use a variety of measures to identify students at risk
of being retained. While AB 1626 gives school districts the option to use the
results of state testing as the only academic indicator to identify low-achieving
students, most districts are rejecting state tests as the sole academic indicator.
Nearly 95% of the districts indicated that they would not use the state test as
their only indicator of low achievement for their students. Districts also re
ported that they would use a variety of measures to identify at-risk students.
The use of multiple measures was either directly cited or suggested by more
than 90% of the districts. Student performance recorded on report cards and
performance on district tests were most often cited as academic indicators.
4. Districts plan to go beyond the guidelines set by the new laws by in
cluding grades not specified in the law. The law requires districts to develop
policies for retention and promotion of students beginning between the second
and third grades; however, a majority of the districts reported that they intend to
include kindergarten and first-grade students as well. Nearly two thirds of the
districts stated that they would include kindergarten in their new retention/
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
promotion policies, and nearly three quarters indicated that they would include
first-grade students in their policies.
Recommendations From the Study
The following recommendations are based on the findings and conclu
sions of this study:
1. School districts must track student retentions beyond the first year.
While research data on retention show no positive effect for retention over time,
the data suggest that some students show improvement in the first year but
that the effect decreases over time (Meisels & Liaw, 1993; Shepard & Smith,
1986). School districts must monitor and offer continual intervention for all
students who have been retained.
2. School districts must measure the effectiveness of their intervention
programs over time and closely examine the instructional practices used by
teachers. While Chicago's Summer Bridge program has demonstrated suc
cess, researchers have found that students do not necessarily maintain the ad
vantage gained in the program. In their 1999 report on the progress of the
Chicago Public School initiative aimed at ending social promotion, Roderick et
al. (1999) concluded that the positive effects of the Summer Bridge program
were not compensating for weak instruction or motivational problems during
the school year. School districts should provide teachers with the training to
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
change weak instructional practices to meet the needs of the students entering
their classrooms.
3. Multi-age classrooms should be examined by school districts as a
viable alternative to retention. Continual-progress, multi-age classrooms are
more in line with how children learn than is the lockstep format of graded class
rooms. The idea of repeating the work of a full year is inconsistent with re
search on the way in which children leam and develop. A child’s development
is a continuous process that needs to be nurtured; it cannot be interrupted and
redone (Darling-Hammond & Falk, 1997).
Recommendations for Further Study
Based on the results of this study, the following are suggested areas for
further investigation:
1. An effort should be made to replicate this study beyond the initial
year of the implementation of the new legislative package (AB 1626, A B 1639,
and SB 1370) to test the findings of this study. During the initial years of imple
mentation, districts are still clarifying their criteria for identifying at-risk students
and are still developing their intervention programs.
2. It is recommended that additional studies be conducted on the long
term effects of retention that occurs because of the new legislation. With the
potential number of retentions being high, the negative attitude felt by students
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
toward retention may be less, which would make retention more socially ac
ceptable.
3. It is recommended that a study be conducted on the cost effective
ness of the intervention programs. Through this type of study, districts could
identify effective intervention programs and make decisions on which programs
would best meet the needs of the students as well as fit within the district bud
get limitations.
4. It would be of interest to determine the attitudes and perceptions of
teachers on the effectiveness of retention in improving student performance.
Also of interest would be to determine whether there is a correlation between a
teacher’s attitude about retention and the number of students retained by that
teacher.
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES CITED
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES CITED
Agora: The impact of high-stakes testing. (2000). Journal of Teacher Educa
tion, 51, 289-292.
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Horsey, C. S. (1997). From first grade for
ward: Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education,
70, 87-107.
American Institutes for Research. (1999). An educators’ guide to schoolwide
reform. Arlington. VA: Educational Research Service.
Angus, D. L., Mirel, J. E., & Vinoskis, M. A. (1988). Historical development of
age stratification in schooling. Teachers College Record, 90,211-234.
Augustiny, M., & Hien, B. (2000, February 27). Students’ views on social pro
motion. Los Angeles Times (Valley ed.), Region section, p. 14.
Bracey, G. W. (1999, June 16). Falling children-twice. Education Week,
18(40), 42.
Byrd, R. S., Weitzman, M., & Auinger, P. (1997). Increased behavior problems
associated with delayed school entry and delayed school progress. Pedi
atrics, 100,654-661.
California Department of Education. (1999). California public school directory
1999. Sacramento: CED Press.
Chen, J., Salahuddin, R., Horsch, P., & Wagner, S. L. (2000). Turning stan
dardized test scores into a tool for improving teaching and learning: An
assessment-based approach. Urban Education, 35, 356-384.
Chmelynski, C. (1998, May). Summer school for meeting higher standards.
Education Digest, 63(9), 47-50.
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Clinton, W. J. (1998, March 2). Memorandum on helping schools end social
promotion. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, pp. 310-312.
Cohn, K. C., & Cohn, C. A. (1998). School improvement initiatives in Long
Beach, California: The quest for higher student achievement, behavior,
and dress standards. Education, 119,181-195.
Dariing-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based assessment and educa
tional equity. Han/ard Educational Review, 64, 5-30.
Dariing-Hammond, L. (1998, November). Avoiding both grade retention and
social promotion. Education Digest, 64(3), 48-53.
Dariing-Hammond, L. & Falk, B. (1997). Using standards and assessments to
support student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 7 9 ,190-199.
Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1998). Facilitating the transition to first
grade: The nature of transition and research on factors affecting it. Ele
mentary School Journal, 98, 351-364.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for
all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Garrison, J. (2000, August 31). Record number of O.C. students not pro
moted. Education: Get-tough law on social advancement means at least
5,060 in elementary and intermediate schools are being held back. Los
Angeles Times (Orange County ed.), Region section, p. 1.
Goodlad, J. I., & Anderson, R. H. (1987). The nongraded elementary school.
New York: Teachers College Press. (Original work published 1963)
Hattie, J. (1999, August 2). Influences on student learning. Inaugural Lecture:
Professor of Education, University of Auckland, NZ.
Hess, G. A., Jr. (1999). Expectations, opportunity, capacity, and will: The four
essential components of Chicago school reform. Educational Policy, 13,
494-517.
Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for track
ing, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade-level retention effects: A meta-analysis of re
search studies. In L. A. Shepard, & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades:
Research and policies on retention (pp. 1-15). New York: Falmer Press.
Janosz, M., LeBianc, M., Boulerice, B., & Tremblay, R. E. (1997). Disentan
gling the weight of school dropout predictors: A test on two longitudinal
samples. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26,733-762.
Johnston, R. C. (1998, September 9). California targets K-12 “ social promo
tions.” Education Week, 18(1), 5.
Kovaleski, J. F., Tucker, J. A., & Stevens, L. J. (1996, February). Bridging
special and regular education: The Pennsylvania initiative. Educational
Leadership, 53(5), 44-47.
Lawton, M. (1997, June 11). Promote or retain? Pendulum for students
swings back again. Education Week, 16(39), 1, 37.
Mandatory Summer School: Required Intensive Instructional Programs Act of
1998, CA AB 1639 Chapter 743 (1998).
May, M. (1999, September 1). Oakland kids skip summer school with impu
nity: 7,000 promoted despite missing makeup work. San Francisco
Chronicle, p. A1.
McCarthy, S. J„ Corman, L., Adair, M., Barati, M., Bertino, J„ McAngus, N., &
Nordin, A. (1996). Building a community of learners: Team-teaching
interdisciplinary units in multi-age classrooms. Language Arts, 73, 395-
401.
Meisels, S. J., & Liaw, F. (1993). Failure in grade: Do retained students catch
up? Journal of Educational Research, 87,69-77.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at risk: A
report to the nation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Owings, W. A., & Magliaro, S. (1998). Grade retention: A history of failure.
Educational Leadership, 56(1), 86-88.
Potter, L. (1996). Examining the negative effects of retention in our schools.
Education, 117, 268-271.
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Pupil Promotion and Retention Act of 1998, CA AB 1626 Chapter 742 (1998).
Roderick, M., Bryk, A., Jacob, B. A., Easton, J. Q., & Allensworth, E. (1999,
December). Ending social promotion: Results from the first two years [On
line]. Chicago. Consortium on Chicago School Research. Available:
http://taww.Cftnsortium-chicago.org
Rothstein, R. (1998). Where is Lake Wobegon, anyway? Phi Delta Kappan,
8 0 ,195-198.
Rothstein, R. (2000, September 13). How tests can drop the ball. New York
Times, p. B11.
Salpeter, J., & Foster, K. (2000, June). Playing the testing game. Technology
and Learning, pp. 26-28.
Sanchez, R. (2000, January 22). Los Angeles lowers grade expectations:
Ending social promotion creates logistical woes. Washington Post, p. A3.
Schwager, M. T., Mitchell, D. E., Mitchell, T. K., & Hecht, J. B. (1992). How
school district policy influences grade level retention in elementary schools.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14,421-438.
Sebring, P. B., & Bryk, A. S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in
Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 81,440-443.
Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1986). Synthesis of research on grade reten
tion. Educational Leadership, 47, 84-88.
Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1989). Introduction and overview. InL. A.
Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on
retention (pp. 1-15). New York: Falmer Press.
Shipps, D., Kahne, J., & Smylie, M. A. (1999). The politics of urban school
reform: Legitimacy, city growth, and school improvement in Chicago. Edu
cational Policy, 13, 518-545.
Silverman, S. (1999, December 5). Opening doors to scholastic success: Put
money into kindergarten and elementary grades. Washington Post, p. B8.
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Smith, D., & Sahagun, L. (2000, January 20). L. A. schools ease plan for
stricter pupil promotion. Education: New guidelines say only students get
ting an F in English can be held back. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.
Summer School Funding Act of 1998, CA SB 1370 Chapter 942 (1998).
Tanner, C. K, & Galis, S. A. (1997). Student retention: Why is there a gap be
tween the majority of research findings and school practice? Psychology in
the Schools, 34(2), 107-114.
Temple, J. A., Reynolds, A. J., & Miedel, W. T. (2000). Can early intervention
prevent high school dropout? Evidence from the Chicago Child-Parent
Centers. Urban Education, 35, 31-56.
Testa, W. A., Sen, S., & Nawsheen, S. R. (2000, May). Reform of Midwest ur
ban schools: B-conference summary. Chicago Fed Letter, n.v.( 153A), 1-4.
Wildavsky, B. (1999, December 13). Lowering the raised bar: Students just
can’t meet higher standards, so states let them pass. U.S. News & World
Report, 127(3), 62-63.
Wood, D. B. (2000, February 15). The cost of holding students back: Califor
nia undertakes America’s biggest ban on social promotion and the prepa
ration has been problematic. Christian Science Monitor, p. 1.
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDICES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
LETTER OF INTRODUCTION
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dana Whetton
1345 N. Placentia Ave. #83
Funerfon,CA 92831
(714) 572-6140 (home/tax)
JuneS. 1999
Dear Superintendent,
California recently enacted legislation ( A B 1626 , A B 1639. S B 1370) designed to end
the practice of promoting students to the next grade level when their achievement i s
unsatisfactory. T he se laws, which target social promotion and support tor
remediation, went into effect th is school year. T h i s su rvey investigates d istricts ' effort
to respond to t h i s legislation. It examines the criteria di st ri ct s will u se to identify
students, the pro ces s di st ri ct s w i n u se to determine retention, the type of remecfiation
programs d is tr ic ts w i n implement, and any safeguards dis tr icts consider for stude nts
not achieving after being retained.
I am a doctoral student at the U n i v e r s it y of Southern California. The information you
provide w O be kept completely confidential. T h i s study i s conducted under stringent
u n iv e r s i ty and government regulations designed to safeguard study participants. N o
district or individual w i be identified with the information provided as r e s u l t s w M be
reported In su m m ar y form.
Please complete (or have an appropriate designee complete) the attached
questionnaire thoroughly. It should take approximately 20 minutes to complete.
Retu rn It In the enclos ed envelope within two weeks of receiving it. Feeifreeto
include a copy of relevant polcles if you like . Please feel free to contact me if you
have any q ue s ti o n s . If you would like to receive a summary of the study r e s u l t s ,
please include a self-addressed stamped envelope when you return the s u r v e y .
Thank you for y o ur time and assistance.
Dana Whetton
P rincipal
Ointon Elementary Sc ho ol
(714/663-6146)
Gretchen Guiton
' Associate P r o f e s s o r
U S C R o s s i e r School of Education
(213/740-2365)
Sincerely.
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
SURVEY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Survey of Districts’
P u p i l Promotion, Retention, and intervention
Policies an d Practices
A B 1626 requires a pupil promotion and retention district policy from second grade through the
end of Junior high/middle school. The following questions ask about current policies and
changes in policies resulting from AB 1626.
1. What is your district's status regarding policy changes In response to this legislation?
(Check one)
New p olicies in p la c e (19 9 6 -1 9 9 9 )
New policies to be i m p le m e n te d (1999-2000)
New policies u n d e r d e v e lo p m e n t
P reviously im p le m e n te d p o lic ie s c o n tin u e (1998-2000)
N o p ro m o tio n p o lic ie s e x is t; a w a itin g SDE g u id e lin e s
2. In the last a c a d e m ic y e a r b e fo re in s titu tin g any ch a n g e s in re s p o n s e to th is le g is la tio n , h o w m a n y s tu d e n ts
w ere retained at e a c h g r a d e le v e l? (P ro vide best data available.)
K _____ 1 * 2 * 3d 4 h 5*
6» ---------7 * > --------- s o N o re c o rd s m a in ta in e d
3. When students were retained, what services were provided? (C ircle re s p o n s e s .)
Not an opt i on Optional Required
Maintained in same grade N O R
Referred to special education N O R
Received after school tutoring N O R
Received summer school N O R
Placed in transition classroom N O R
Placed in multi-age classroom N O R
4. Prior to Instituting any changes In response to AB 1626, what promotion policies were in
place? (C heck all th at a p p ly a n d d e s c rib e specifics.)
D istrict p o lic y le ft r e te n tio n s o le ly to d is c re tio n of site a d m in is tra to r
D istrict p o lic y e s ta b lis h e d c r ite ria re q u irin g or lim itin g re te n tio n in ways re la te d to :
Specific g rad e le v e l (e .g ., P rfm aryX descrfbe)_____________________________________
A certain n u m b e r of tim e s p er s tu d e n t (d esc rib e)____________________________________
Student cha ra c te ris tic s (e .g ., size, age) (desc rib e)___________________________________
S c o re r: o n a re te n tio n m e a s u r e (e.g.,Light) (d esc rib e)_________________________________
Scores on an a c h ie v e m e n t m e a s u re (e.g., SAT 9, C A T ) (d esc rib e)_______________________
— C lassro o m p e rfo rm a n c e (e.g., g rades) (describe)-----------------------------------------------------------
C ategorical p la c e m e n t (e .g ., S p e c E d , LEP) (describe)________________________________
P arental a g re e m e n t (d e s c r ib e )________________________________________________
Teacher r e c o m m e n d a tio n (d e s c rib e )____________________________________________
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. In response to this legislation, did or will the district use a committee to develop the new
policy on pupil promotion and retention?
(C h e c k o n e .)
Y e s N o N A (P re v io u s ly im p le m e n te d p o lic y in ine w ith n e w le g is la tio n )
6. W ho did or will participate in development of the new policy on pupil promotion and
retention? (C h e c k al th a t a p p ly )
C o u n ty O ffic e S u p p o r t Staff------D is tr ic t level A d m in is tr a to r s S c h o o l S ite A d m in is t r a to r s
T e a c h e r s P a r e n ts C o m m u n ity M e m b e r s
O th e r s (P le a s e S p e c ify ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 1626 requires pupil promotion and retention policy from second grade through the end of
junior high/middle school. In addition, it emphasizes reading proficiency in the primary grades.
The Stanford 9 results or other academic performance measures may be the sole criteria for
retention. Moreover the State superintendent will establish a minimum level at which a student
m ust be retained unless the teacher recom m ends promotion.
7. Please indicate whether the following statements are true of your new or anticipated
policy. (C irc le re s p o n s e s .)
P o fic y in c lu d e s K in d e ig a rie n c h B d re a True False
F o fic y in c lu d e s firs t g ra d e ch id re n . True False
R e a d in g p r o fic ie n c y is th e p rim a ry fa c to r fo r id e n t if y in g p u p ils in g ra d e s 2 & 3. True F alse
R e a d in g p r o fic ie n c y is th e p rim a ry fackr fo r id e n t if y in g p u p ls in g ra d e s 3 & 4. True False
T he d is tr ic t w lestabfishahigher m in im u m th a n th a t s e t b y th e S u p e rin te n d e n t True False
S TA R re s u ts a re fo e flflfyfeckx u s e d to id e n S fy p u p is a t-r is k of r e te n tio n . True F alse*
*lf y o u r a n s w e r a b o u t S T A R re s u lts w a s Taise*, K s t al a c a d e m ic in d ic a to rs y o u w ill u s e . (Indude S T A R if it is o n e
irx fic a to r u s e d in co n ju n c fio n w tt o th e r m e a s u r e s ___________________________________________
8. A B 1639 requires that supplemental intensive instructional programs be provided for
pupils identified as being at-risk of retention. From the following program options, please
indicate whether the program is currently offered, will be expanded in size or will be
created. (C irc le r e s p o n s e s .)
R e a d in g R e c o v e r y NotAvalable A v a l* * B ran d ed Create
S u c c e s s fo r Al Not A v a l* * A v a l* * Expanded Create
B r e a k in g fo e C o d e Not A v a l* * A v a l* * Expanded Create
S o a r to S u c c e s s N o tA v a ia t* A v a l* * Expanded Create
D ire c t ln s tr u c fio n (e .g ., D IS T A R ) Not A v a l* * A v a l* * Expanded Create
O th e r (P le a s e 1 s t b e lo w .)
A v a la t* Expanded Create
A vaiable Expanded Create
Available Expanded Create
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9. When will programs be offered? (C heck all (hat apply.)
S u m m e r In te rc e s s io n S a tu rd a y s
B e fo re S c h o o l Alter S c h o o l P u ll O u t
E l e c t i v e s —— O t h e r ( P l e a s e Specify.)______
10. Who will provide the services? (Check a ll that apply.)
C la s s ro o m tea c h e rs S p e c E d teachers ---------T id e 1 te a c h e rs
P a ta p to fes s io n a ls C o A e g e /U n rv e rs ity stu d e n ts C ro s s age tu to r s
C o m m u n ity V o lu n tee rs O th er (Please Specify.)________________________
11. AB 1639 states that district adopted policy shall include an appeal process for the
teacher’s decision to promote or retained. To whom can parents appeal in your district?
A n intividual (Please sp e cify) (e.g., p u p a ’ s teacher, c fis tr ic t a d m in is tra to r, site a d m in is tra to r)
A site le v e l com m ittee (W ho w o u ld s e rv e o n th is c o m m ittee ? e.g., te ac h ers, p a re n ts )
A d is tric t le vel c o m m ittee (W ho w o u ld s e rv e on th is c o m m ittee ? e.g., d is tric t le v e l a d m in is tra to rs )
12. Once a student student has been recommended for retention, what services will be
provided for the student? (C ircle re s p o n s e s .)
Not an option Optional Required
Maintain in same grade N O R
Refer to special education N O R
Refer to before/after school tutoring N O R
Refer to summer school N O R
Placement In transition classroom N O R
Placement in multi-age classroom N O R
Other (Please list)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- N 0 R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------N O R
____________________________________________ N O R
Please feel free to add any additional comments concerning your district’s policy or district's
process in adopting new policy in response to this new legislation (AB 1626, A B 1639, and SB
1370).
(Prepared by Dana Jaye Whetton.)
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Correlates of job satisfaction among high school principals

PDF

A study of student retentiveness, achievement, and program completion in a school -to -career program

PDF

An elementary school's perceptions of the effectiveness of teacher evaluation to enhance teacher practice

PDF

An analysis of Long Beach Unified School District's EXCEL model of providing gifted programs for urban students and their effect on student achievement

PDF

Elementary school teachers' perceptions of professional development needs

PDF

Determining the impact of state takeover of school districts on the academic program at individual schools

PDF

Characteristics of juvenile court/correction teachers and job satisfaction

PDF

An analysis of perceptions and implementation of California's teacher evaluation process in a K--5 public school and its impact on teacher practice

PDF

A comparative study of the role of the principal in conventional public schools and in charter schools

PDF

An evaluation of the current level of Korean parent involvement at Third Street Elementary School

PDF

A case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high -achieving urban elementary school

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

Chinese parents' attitudes toward parental involvement: A case study of the ABC Unified School District

PDF

An analysis of the implementation of content standards in selected unified school districts of California

PDF

Elementary teacher perceptions of school violence: Safe school elements and responsibility.

PDF

Corporate investment in education: Motivational factors and trends in direct giving

PDF

Differential characteristics of beginning teachers

PDF

Communication techniques utilized by superintendents with their governing boards that develop trust, unity, and a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities

PDF

Interfacing with a digital archive (ISLA) in enhancing elementary school geography instruction and learning

PDF

A case study: An analysis of the adequacy of one school district's model of data use to raise student achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Whetton, Dana Jaye (author)

Core Title An examination of California school districts' response to AB 1626, AB 1639, and SB 1370: The Pupil Promotion and Retention Act of 1998

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor [illegible] (committee chair), Baker, Robert (committee member), Gothold, Stuart (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-167617

Unique identifier UC11339285

Identifier 3054825.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-167617 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3054825.pdf

Dmrecord 167617

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Whetton, Dana Jaye

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA