University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A case study of social promotion and retention policies, strategies, and programs

(USC Thesis Other)

A case study of social promotion and retention policies, strategies, and programs

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

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. UM I 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 bleedthrough, 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 w ill 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
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 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.
A CASE STUDY OF SOCIAL PROMOTION AND RETENTION
POLICIES, STRATEGIES, AND PROGRAMS
by
Sally Ann Price
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment o f the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2001
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3054794
Copyright 2001 by
Price, Sally Ann
All rights reserved.
___ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 3054794
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 Educaaon
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This dissertation, written by
P r i r p . R a l l y
under the direction o f h^^D issertation Committee, and
approved by all members o f the Committee, has been
presented to and accepted by the Faculty o f the School
o f Education in partialfulfillment o f the requirementsfor
the degree o f
D o c t o r o f E d u c a tio n
'Dat e
tan
Dissertation Committee / )
o . ru,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sally Price
ABSTRACT
A CASE STUDY OF SOCIAL PROMOTION AND RETENTION POLICIES,
STRATEGIES, AND PROGRAMS
Introduction:
The underachievement of American students on a variety o f national and
international assessments raised public and political concern for educational
accountability in the United States. As social promotion has been blamed as a
major contributor to this underachievement, politicians have pushed for an end to
the practice. The U.S. Department of Education provided suggestions to states and
districts on how to avoid social promotion, and most states began implementing
policies, programs and strategies to end social promotion. California enacted AB
1626 to prohibit social promotion, and included provisions and mandates for
providing all students every opportunity to meet standards.
Purpose and Methodology:
With the new policy in effect in California, the purpose o f the study was to
investigate the design, implementation, adequacy, and impact of AB 1626 on one
southern California middle school and its district. The school had a new social
promotion and retention policy in place for over a year, and had implemented
standards-based instructional reform. The district and school both included a
diverse student population. The study is a descriptive-analytic, qualitative case
study. The instruments and data collection were guided by conceptual framework
based on current research and legislation.
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Findings:
The key findings show the districts design of the retention and promotion
policy is more adequate than the implementation at the school site. Data also
indicates the policies, in coordination with other reform efforts, positively
impacted student achievement. Further, the change process used to implement the
new policies at the district and the school was both aided and hindered by various
factors in effect at the time of the study.
Implications:
Districts need to evaluate the implementation of new policies and
strategies to ensure fidelity to the design and to evaluate the cause o f any
misalignment. As data shows a positive relationship to student achievement,
policy-makers should continue to support the implementation o f standards-based
instruction and find additional funding for intervention programs. Finally,
educational leaders must understand that the consequences of failed contract
negotiations greatly affect implementation and continuation of intervention
programs and strategies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
CHAPTER ONE - OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Standards-Based Reform 7
Components of Standards-Based Education 8
Effective Interventions 9
Statement o f the Problem 12
Purpose of the Study 13
Research Questions 14
Importance o f the Study 14
Limitations 16
Delimitations 16
Assumptions 17
Definition o f Terms 17
Accountability 17
Assessment 17
Catch-up Strategies 18
Conceptual Framework 18
Content Standards 18
Educationally Disadvantaged 18
In-grade Retention 18
Intervention Strategies 18
Norm Referenced Test 19
Policy 19
Social Promotion 19
Standards-based Education 19
Standardized Test 20
Student at Risk 20
Organization o f the Dissertation 20
CHAPTER TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW 21
History of Retention Policy Development 21
Student Performance in America 23
Reaction to Underachievement 25
Effects o f Recent Student Accountability Policies 27
The Traditional Practice o f Retention 31
Profile o f the Retained Child 34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
How Students Are Identified for Retention 35
Policies on Retention and Social Promotion 39
Interventions in the Traditional Practice o f Retention 41
Impact o f Retention on Students 42
Fiscal Implications of Retention 45
Retention from a New Perspective: Standards-Based Reform 45
Key Elements of the Standards-Based Reform 47
Belief 47
Content and Performance Standards 47
Assessment 48
Accountability 50
Equitable Learning Opportunities 51
Professional Development 52
Catch-up and Intervention Strategies and Programs 53
Learning Theories to Ensure the Success of All
Students 57
Fiscal Feasibility 60
Implementation o f Standards-Based Educational Reform 62
Accountability 63
Fiscal Influence on Change 68
Levers o f Change Implementation 69
Role of States and Districts in Implementing
Change 70
Other New Reform Efforts 72
Retention Policy Under Standards-Based Reform 73
California Policy 73
Comparative District Retention Policy Analysis 74
Long Beach 74
Chicago 76
Summary of the Literature Review 78
CHAPTER THREE - METHODOLOGY 80
Introduction 80
Sample and Population 81
District 82
School 84
Educational Leaders 85
Teachers 86
Students 87
Instrumentation 88
Framework for the First Research Question 89
Framework for the Second research Question 89
Framework for the Third Research Question 90
Framework for the Fourth Research Question 93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Framework for the Fifth Research Question 95
Data Collection Instruments 97
Case Study Guide 98
T eacher Questionnaire 101
Researcher Rating Form 101
Data Collection 102
Data Analysis 104
Summary 106
CHAPTER FOUR - ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
OF DATA AND FINDINGS 107
Research Question One: Policies and Strategies Design 107
Framework for Research Question One 107
The Process for Policy and Strategy Development 108
Historical Perspective 108
The Goals o f the Process 109
Community and Teacher Involvement 111
Underlying Beliefs 113
Overview o f the Design 114
Policies 114
Vision o f the policy 115
Inclusion o f Standards 115
Beliefs 116
State Statutory Elements and Unique Elements
in the Policy
Criteria for Promotion and Retention
Timeline
Site Retention and Promotion Committee
Exclusions
Notification
Interventions
Policy and Strategy Dissemination
Policy and Strategy Implementation
Outside and Inside Influences Affecting
Implementation
Roadblocks to Implementation
Policy and Strategy Funding
Funding o f Interventions
Effect o f Funding Issues on Curriculum
and Instruction
Summary of Research Question One Data
The Design o f the Policies and Strategies is Thorough
and Well Thought Out 136
118
120
123
124
125
126
126
128
130
131
132
134
134
135
135
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Design Process Was Top-down and Did Not
Engage Teachers and the Community 137
Research Question Two: Policies and Strategies Design
in Practice 137
Framework for Research Question Two 137
Identification of At Risk Students 138
Criteria for identification 13 8
Data 140
Early Identification and Parent Notification 141
Monitoring of At-Risk Students 142
Interventions for At Risk Students 144
Intervention Programs 144
Intervention C lasses 147
Other interventions 149
Individualized Interventions 150
Interventions Through the Eyes of Students 150
Connection o f Interventions to Other
School Reform Efforts and the
Regular Program 153
Formative Assessments Used for
Monitoring 156
Parent Notification and Involvement 157
Evaluation o f Interventions for
Effectiveness 158
The Decision to Socially Promote or Retain a
Student 159
Decision-Making 159
Appeal Process 161
Post Retention or Social Promotion 161
Services and Placement Offered to
Retained Students 161
Services and Placement Offered to
Socially Promoted Students 162
Options and Associated Motivation 163
Reporting of Social Promotion and
Retention 165
Policy and Strategy Monitoring: Linking Policy
to Practice 165
Monitoring for Effectiveness 165
Data Monitoring 165
Summary o f Research Question Two Data 166
Negotiation Problems Between the District and
the Teachers’ Union Severely Impacted
Intervention Programs 167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The School Does Not Use Multiple Criteria in
Identifying Students At Risk o f Retention 167
Social Promotion and Retention Strategies
Strongly Coordinate to Other School
Reform Efforts 168
Research Question Three: Adequacy o f Design 168
Framework for Research Question Three 168
Alignment with State Policy 170
Researcher Ratings on Alignment with
State Policy 170
Local Policy on Pupil Promotion and
Retention 171
Criteria for Retention 171
Exception to Retention Criteria 171
The New Local Policy 172
Exceeding Retention Criteria 172
Supplemental Instruction for Pupils in
Grades 2-9 Who Have Been
Retained 172
Programs o f Supplemental Instruction for
Students Who Have Low Scores 172
Program Implementation 172
Pupils Completing Grade 6 or Grade 9 173
Legislative Intent 173
Alignment with New Context Social Promotion
and Retention Policies and Strategies 173
Researcher Ratings for Alignment with
Traditional Versus New-Context
Policies and Strategies for
Social Promotion and Retention 173
Beliefs 175
Policy Context 177
Grade Levels 177
Subgroups 178
Curriculum, Instruction, and Programs 178
Formative Assessments 180
Summative Assessments 181
Assessment Data 18 1
Identification for Intervention 183
Interventions 184
Responsibility 187
Accountability 188
Decision-making for Social Promotion
or Retention 189
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Notification 190
Post-Social Promotion or Retention 191
Policy and Strategy Monitoring 193
Alignment with Standards Based Reform 193
Researcher Ratings for Alignment with
Standards-Based Reform 194
Standards 195
Assessment 198
Instruction 202
Curriculum 204
Personalization 207
Climate 208
Organization 212
Leadership 213
Teacher Professionalism 215
Accountability 217
Summary o f Research Question Three Data 218
The District and School Policies and Strategies
are Clearly Aligned with State Policy 219
The Lack o f Performance Standards in the
District and School Directly Impact
Several Elements Rated 219
Weaknesses at the School and District Level
Include Policy and Strategy Monitoring
and Post-Retention Programs 219
Research Question Four: Change Process in the Design and
Implementation o f Policies and Strategies 220
Framework for Research Question Four 220
Leadership 221
Motivation and Resistance to Change 222
Teacher Professional Development 224
Research-Based, On-going Professional
Development 224
Teachers’ Stages o f Concern 226
Teachers’ Level of Awareness 227
Cross-Role Teaming 228
Connection o f Standards-Based Reform and
Promotion and Retention Policies and
Strategies to Student Achievement 229
Commitment 230
Fidelity to the Content and Process of
Reform Goals is Critical 230
Commitment to Original Purpose 231
Commitment to the Process 231
vu
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary of Research Question Four Data 233
School Leadership Support was Significant
in the Change Process 234
The Relationship o f Standards-Based Reform
and Social Promotion and Retention
Policies and Strategies is Integral to the
School 234
Negotiation Problems Hindered the Change
Process 234
Research Question Five: Impact of Policies and Strategies 235
Framework for Research Question Five 235
Researcher Rating on the Impact o f the Design and
the Impact of the Findings 236
Impact on Organizational Beliefs, Priorities, and Practices 237
Organizational Beliefs 237
Organizational Priorities 238
Organizational Practices 239
Impact on Instructional Practices 241
Impact o f Student Beliefs, Motivation, and Learning 243
Impact on Parent and Community Support 244
Impact on Student Achievement 246
SAT-9 Achievement 246
District Assessments 249
Associated Factors Affecting Achievement 249
Impact on Social Promotion, Retention, and Dropout Rates 250
Social Promotion Rates 250
Retention Rates 251
Dropout Rates 252
Summary of Research Question Five Data 254
The Policies and Strategies Greatly Affected
Organizational Practices 254
Data Reveals Increased Student Performance 254
Summary of Data Analysis and Findings 255
Research Question One 255
Research Question Two 256
Research Question Three 258
Research Question Four 259
Research Question Five 261
Discussion o f Findings 262
Adequacy o f Design and Implementation 262
Impact on Student Achievement 266
Reform Efforts 266
School Culture 268
Critical Role o f the Change Process 271
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Negotiations Hindered Implementation 271
Communication Hindered Implementation 272
Relationship of Principal to Staff 273
Several Assistances Provided 273
Commitment to Continuous Improvement 274
Summary 275
CHAPTER FIVE - SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMEDATIONS 277
Statement of the Problem 277
Purpose o f the Study 278
Methodology 279
Sample and Population 279
Instrumentation 280
Framework for First Research Question 280
Framework for Research Question Two 281
Framework for Research Question Three 281
Framework for Research Question Four 283
Framework for Research Question Five 283
Data Collection Instruments 284
Case Study Guide 284
Teacher Questionnaire 284
Researcher Rating 285
Data Collection 285
Data Analysis 286
Summary o f Findings 286
Research Question One 287
Research Question Two 288
Research Question Three 290
Research Question Four 291
Research Question Five 293
Conclusions 293
Implications 294
Policy Makers 295
District and Site Leaders 296
Teachers 297
Suggestions for Additional Research 297
REFERENCES 300
APPENDIX 313
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Goals o f the Design of District Policies and
Strategies: Results from Teacher Questionnaire 111
Teacher and Community Input on the Design of
District Policies and Strategies: Results from
Teacher Questionnaire 112
Underlying Beliefs o f the Design of District and
School Policies and Strategies: Results from Teacher
Questionnaire 114
Vision o f the Design o f District Policies and Strategies:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire 115
Inclusion o f Standards in the Design o f District
Policies and Strategies:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire 116
State Statutory Elements in the Design o f District
Policies and Strategies:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire 119
Awareness o f the District/School Design of
Promotion and Retention Policies and Strategies:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire 129
Alignment With State Policy:
Results from Researcher Rating 170
Alignment With New Context Social Promotion
and Retention Policies and Strategies:
Results from Researcher Rating 174
Beliefs: Results from Teacher Questionnaire 176
Curriculum. Instruction, and Assessment:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire 179
Assessment Data: Results from Teacher Questionnaire 183
Identification for Intervention: Results from
Teacher Questionnaire 184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14 Interventions: Results from Teacher Questionnaire 186
Table 15 Decision-Making for Social Promotion or
Retention: Results from Teacher Questionnaire 190
Table 16 Parent Notification: Results from Teacher Questionnaire 191
Table 17 Post Retention or Social Promotion: Results from
T eacher Questionnaire 192
Table 18 Alignment with Standards-based Reform:
Results from Researcher Rating 195
Table 19 Assessment: Results from Teacher Questionnaire 201
Table 20 Instruction: Results from Teacher Questionnaire 204
Table 21 Climate: Results from Teacher Questionnaire 212
Table 22 Teacher Professionalism: Results from Teacher
Questionnaire 217
Table 23 Change Process: Leadership
Results from Teacher Questionnaire 222
Table 24 Change Process: Motivation and Resistance
Results from Teacher Questionnaire 223
Table 25 Change Process: Teacher Professional Development
Results from Teacher Questionnaire 226
Table 26 Change Process: Teachers’ Stages o f Concern
Results from Teacher Questionnaire 227
Table 27 Change Process: Teachers’ Level o f Awareness
Results from Teacher Questionnaire 228
Table 28 Change Process: Interest in Cross-Role Teaming
Results from Teacher Questionnaire 228
Table 29 Change Process: Teacher and Community Involvement
Results from Teacher Questionnaire 231
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 30
Table 31
Table 32
Table 33
Table 34
Table 35
Table 36
Table 37
Table 38
Table 39
Table 40
Table 41
Table 42
Table 43
Change Process: Commitment
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Impact o f Pupil Promotion and Retention
Policies and Strategies: Results from Researcher
Rating Form
Impact: Organizational Beliefs
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Impact: Organizational Practices
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Impact: Instructional Practices
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Impact: Student Beliefs, Motivation, and Learning
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Impact: Community and Parent Support
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Academic Performance Index: School Report
Academic Performance Index Growth for
Numerically Significant Subgroups
National Percentile Growth in SAT-9 Scores
Over Three Years
Percent of Students Scoring at or Above the
50th Percentile Based on SAT-9 Results
Improvement in School-Wide Math Assessment
In the 1999-2000 School Year
Impact: Student Achievement
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Impact: Social Promotion, Retention, and Dropout Rates
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
233
236
238
241
242
244
245
247
247
248
248
249
250
253
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
LIST OF FIGURES
The Relationship of Conceptual Frameworks to the
Research Questions
The Relationship of Data Collection Instruments to the
Research Questions
At Risk and Consideration for Retention Criteria for
Regular Education in Grades 6-8 Middle School
At Risk and Consideration for Retention Criteria for
English Learners
District Promotion and Retention Timeline
School Plan Options for Students Below Standard in
Language Arts and Math
Monitoring o f At Risk and Retention Candidate
Students at Southern Border Middle School
Parent Responsibilities as Listed on the Individualized
Remediation Plan
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
After the report A Nation at Risk (1983) was released, Americans became
disillusioned with the educational system. The report claimed that the
underachievement o f American students puts the country at economic,
intellectual, moral, and spiritual risk. Since that time, other international surveys
have supported the claim o f poor achievement in the areas of mathematics and
reading. In the subject o f math, the Third International Math and Science Study
(TIMSS) from 1995 shows eighth and twelfth grade American students
performing below the international average.
In the area o f reading, the trends in the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) show American students are doing poorly: the
majority of America’s students are only at or below the “Proficient” level o f
reading (Forgione, 1998). Between 1992 and 1994, twelfth-graders declined in
average reading performance, and the overall trend shows no significant change at
any age between 1984 and 1996 (Forgione, 1998).
Underachievement is not evenly distributed through socio-economic
classes, ethnic and cultural groups, or linguistic ability. A discrepancy exists
between achievement measures o f African-American and Hispanic students and
students of low socio-economic status as seen in standardized test scores, dropout
statistics, and retention statistics (George, 1991; Karweit, 1999; Meisels & Liaw,
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1993; Wilson & Wheelock, 1999). The trends in the NAEP and TIMMS data
show that although the achievement gap between the poor and minority students
and the Caucasian students is lessening, the distance remains significant
(Forgione, 1998).
Overall statewide testing data also show that students o f minority groups,
low-economic status, and those who are linguistically challenged often score
lower on standardized tests than their English-speaking, middle-to-upper-class,
Caucasian peers (Forgione. 1998; Ogbu, 1994). The most recent results o f three
years o f California's statewide testing and reporting program, STAR 2000, show
that although overall scores on the test are rising, some gaps are widening.
Howell, Miller, and Frey (2000) report that troublesome gaps remain for English
learners, Hispanics, and African Americans. Also, students from low-income
families are falling even further behind their classmates.
While reports such as “America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages”
(National Center for Education Statistics, 1990) are pronouncing the need for a
more educated workforce, students are leaving schools poorly prepared for the
needs o f society. As a result o f the demand for high-skilled employees, the
underachievement o f many students is contributing to the growing gap between
the rich and the poor. Doing well at school and college has never been more
important for young people in increasing their choice o f careers and lowering
their probability of ending up in dead-end jobs (Forgione, 1998).
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Because education is a significant factor in one’s chance for economic
success, educators must address the underachievement o f all students, as well as
the disparity in achievement between groups. The future state of the country is at
stake. Failure to address this student performance problem will not only affect
individual students, but will create a burden on the country as it bears the social,
economic, and political consequences o f an undereducated citizenry (Tucker &
Codding, 1999). If the needs o f ALL students are not addressed, the gap will
widen along racial and socio-economic lines, which could lead to social unrest.
The economic costs o f underachievement include not only the fiscal cost o f
students repeating a grade, but also unemployment, a high dependence on social
security and welfare benefits, low tax contribution, and a higher probability of
incarceration in the correctional system. In addition, the political cost is a people
who are unable to contribute critically and productively to this democracy.
A Nation at Risk caused educational performance in America to become a
national concern. With its publication, elected officials and policymakers began
demanding that educators be held accountable for student results (Buttram &
Waters, 1997). The most obvious and easily dealt with target of holding students
responsible for their learning, was ending the practice o f social promotion, as this
was seen as a major contributor to the underachievement of America’s students.
President Clinton, several state governors, and the President of the American
Federation o f Teachers urged states and districts to put an end to the insidious
practice of social promotion (Feldman, 1997; Riley, Smith, & Peterson, 1999).
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Soon after, several states, including California, enacted legislation that abolished
the use o f social promotion.
Ending the practice o f social promotion may have appeased the public, but
it did not address the overall issue o f underperformance, or the underperformance
o f certain groups. Getting all students to learn requires a comprehensive approach
that is often overlooked because o f the many reasons given for the poor
performance of American students. Some o f the most common reasons given for
poor performance are differences in cultural, sociological, economic, linguistic,
and political factors (Benard, 1993; Darling-Hammond, 1994; Garcia, 1990;
Hollins & Spencer, 1990; Ladson-Billings, 1992; Oakes, 1992; Ogbu, 1994).
Although many of these views emphasize that instruction is not matched to the
unique needs of the children o f different cultures, classes, and languages, the
tendency in education has been to use these theories as excuses for poor
performance.
Other theories point to teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and training as having
greater influence over outcomes of students’ performance than fixed
characteristics (Oakes, Wells, Jones, & Datnow, 1997). Teachers who believe
culture, economic, and linguistic factors predict student success, are less likely to
feel responsible for the learning o f these students, as they perceive that the cause
o f underachievement is out o f their control. Still others see this underachievement
as a lack o f effort on the part o f the student, which again focuses the attention and
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
responsibility for learning away from the teacher and onto the students (Shepard
& Smith, 1990).
Structural and systematic inequities are also used to explain the
underachievement o f specific groups of students. The inadequacy in funding
based on the needs o f the school further leads to a discrepancy in achievement
(Odden, 2000). The system of tracking, lowering expectations, poorly trained
teachers, unfilled positions, and poor facilities in inner-city schools add to the
underachievement o f these students (Darling-Hammond, 1994; Oakes, 1992).
Another argument is that low-performing students o f minority status are
systematically tracked into illiteracy (Ladson-Billings, 1992).
The effort to improve student achievement must focus on ways teachers
and instruction can be adapted to match the different needs o f these students. The
factors teachers have control over are their beliefs and training. A teacher’s belief
that all students can and will learn has consistently been shown to affect student
achievement (Oakes & Lipton, 1999). To reach all students, teachers must have
the belief that all students can learn, and the knowledge, ability, and skills to work
with diverse populations (Oakes & Lipton, 1999; Tucker & Codding, 1998;
Wheelock, 1998).
Rather than focusing on ways to ensure all students meet grade-level
standards, a major strategy for dealing with students’ lack o f performance has
been the practice o f retaining students in grade, or socially promoting them to the
next grade without their mastering grade-level material. Criteria on which social
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
promotion and retention decisions are based have typically been arbitrary and
subjective (American Federation o f Teachers, 1996; George, 1993). Neither of
these practices has addressed the issue effectively. In fact, studies on retention
found that on average, retained children are worse off than promoted counterparts
in both personal adjustment and academic outcomes (Holmes, 1989). Although
grade retention is gaining renewed popularity as a policy, it has been found to be
ineffective, and research overwhelmingly supports the finding that it does not
improve student achievement over time (Harvey, 1994; Holmes, 1989; Shepard &
Smith, 1989).
The issue of retention and social promotion is traditionally cast as an
either/or debate. Although this may fit the political climate, this either/or framing
keeps the focus off the real issue o f early identification and early intervention.
Retention as traditionally practiced has several flaws. First, the decision to retain a
student is not based on standardized criteria. Studies o f state and district policies
show that most have “no agreed upon standards o f performance against which
student progress can be judged and on which credible, defensible promotion
decisions can be made” (American Federation o f Teachers, 1997). Further, many
of the policies in place use grades and/or standardized test scores as a basis for
retention decisions, neither of which are credible sources as stand-alone criteria
(Archer, 1998; Beubert & Hauser, 1999).
After the decision to retain a student is made, the treatment for that child is
typically to give him/her a larger dose of what failed to work the first time.
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Retainees are returned to a classroom to repeat the same curriculum, and are
taught the same way. Little to no additional support is given to the student to help
him/her catch-up, and no individual learning plan is provided to ensure the child’s
success (Cooke & Stammer, 1985; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Riley etal., 1999).
Finally, retention significantly increases the chances o f a student’s dropping out,
and a second retention makes dropping out a virtual certainty (Setencich, 1994;
Grissom & Shepard, 1989).
Research consistently shows that retained students are disproportionately
Black, Hispanic, male, and from poor families (Meisels & Liaw, 1993; Roderick,
1994; Roderick, 1995). Again, the inequity of retention is apparent, yet, within the
traditional practice of retention, the equity issue is not addressed.
Standards-based reform. The reform movement towards standards-based
education begins to address the concerns o f the traditional practice of social
promotion and retention. The primary purpose o f the new reform is to increase
student achievement. This is accomplished through the creation of clear,
challenging standards in all academic subjects (Darling-Hammond, 1998b;
McLaughlin & Shepard, 1995; Tucker & Codding, 1998). Assessment is then
aligned to the standards, and consists o f formative, frequent assessment using
multiple measures. Through the use o f assessments, students at risk of retention
are identified early in order to provide targeted, individualized interventions
(Tucker & Codding, 1998; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). An accountability
system is then developed to appropriately hold all persons responsible for the
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students’ meeting the standards. Students are held accountable for movement
towards meeting the standards, while teachers are held accountable for providing
rich instruction (Merrick, McCreery, & Brown, 1998; Tucker & Codding, 1999).
Components o f standards-based education. The focus on helping all
students meet standards begins to address the issue of equity. Standards provide
clear criteria on which to base retention and promotion decisions. Along with the
alignment o f standards and assessment, comes the need to identify students who
are failing to meet those standards, so that intensive interventions can occur to
help the child catch-up. Standards also provide clear criteria for evaluating student
progress and understanding. The new reform calls for evaluating students on
multiple measures, not solely on grades or standardized tests as before (August &
Hakuta, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 1997). Using standards to design curriculum
and instruction, to assess student work, and to evaluate teachers has been highly
successful in high poverty schools that have significantly exceeded expectations
(Barth etal., 1999).
Teacher expertise, professional development, curricular alignment,
assessment, school organization, and funding are all components o f the new
reform movement that work together to create powerful learning experiences for
all students (Darling-Hammond, 1997). Although many of these reforms are being
developed as a response to political pressure, the focus is moving away from the
“either social promotion or retention” debate into a forum for helping all students
meet standards by providing early identification and intervention to ensure their
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
success. The advice o f several researchers in the area o f standards is to use the
mandates and legislation as a vehicle o f real improvement in student achievement,
rather than seeing them as a passing fad (Cox, 2000).
Embedded in standards-based reform is the focus on utilizing
contemporary learning theories and effective catch-up strategies and programs. In
the past decade, a great deal of research has identified new theories on how
students learn and what motivates them to learn. In order to affect student
achievement, Myron Dembo (2000) argues that skill, will, and self-regulatory
behavior must be addressed. Applying this knowledge to programs will guide
districts and schools in developing effective programs of intervention.
Effective interventions. “Catch-up” theories and catch-up programs
encompass the key traits o f the standards-based reform that include formative
assessment, quality instruction, early identification, and targeted interventions.
The programs also have as their foundation the belief that all students can achieve
at grade level and that effort is more important than ability (Tucker & Codding,
1998). The typical excuses given for students’ underachievement are no longer
feasible if the new belief that student effort outweighs ability is correct.
Using catch-up programs and practices to help all students meet standards
has proven successful. Slavin and Madden (1989) found that characteristics of
effective classroom programs included the accommodation o f instruction to
individual needs while maximizing direct instruction, and frequently assessing
student progress. None o f the elements o f the catch-up programs are completely
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
new or unique, but what makes them different is the school-wide, coordinated,
and proactive plan for translating positive expectations into concrete success for
all children (Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996).
Although the standards-based reform is comprehensive and stresses the
importance o f interventions and catch-up programs to avoid retention, many states
are implementing policies and accountability systems without providing the
necessary support for these interventions. The 1996 report by the American
Federation o f Teachers stated that only 10 states require and fund intervention
programs to help low-performing students reach standard. Eight additional
schools required intervention, but did not provide the funding (American
Federation o f Teachers, 1996).
To ensure the success o f this reform and the achievement of all students,
policy-makers and educators must implement all elements o f the reform and
create accountability plans that make sense. It is crucial for states and districts to
understand their role in creating policies and supports for implementing
standards-based reform. Peter Hill and Carmel Crevola (1999) use the following
framework to detail the primary tasks of states and districts: (a) determine
standards and set system-wide and school-specific, year-by-year targets; (b) focus
school support services and available funds on achieving the standards and
targets; (c) put in place accountability and incentive arrangements linked to
performance against standards and targets; (d) conduct periodic fiill-cohort testing
to monitor performance against the standards and targets; and (e) conduct or
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sponsor research and evaluation o f those programs and designs that have been
identified as most useful in meeting the standards and targets.
Several states are attempting to use this policy system and support
framework, whereas others are only partially adhering to the suggested tasks.
Following states such as Texas, New York, and Florida, California has adopted
content standards, and has set targets for meeting those standards. The Academic
Performance Index (API), and the California Public Schools Accountability Act
(PSAA) of 1999 make up the accountability and incentive arrangements. The state
assessment (SAT-9), though, has not been fully aligned with the state standards,
and the accountability and incentives are not linked to performance standards. To
hold students accountable, California is requiring that students meet all grade
level standards before being promoted as mandated by the Pupil Retention and
Promotion and Retention law (AB 1626) prohibiting social promotion. All
students will also be required to pass the High School Exit Exam (HSEE)
beginning in 2004 (California Department of Education, 2000).
California’s AB 1626 includes provisions and mandates for providing all
students every opportunity to meet standards. A partner piece o f legislation, AB
1639, requires mandatory summer school and intensive instruction for those
students who are in danger o f being retained (California Department of Education,
1999). Intervention, early identification, parent notification, and multiple
assessment measures are not only part of the legislation, but also part of the larger
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
standards-based reform. Other states have also implemented similar legislation
encouraging the use o f interventions (EdSource, 2000).
Yet, the local change and implementation process will determine how well
these state-level reforms materialize at the site level. Research on the change
process shows that educational reform legislated at the state level can be an
effective means o f improving schools when it is woven into a cohesive strategy at
the local level (Odden & Marsh, 1988). The goal then, at the local level, is to take
all the pieces o f legislation, all the components of successful programs, and the
research on the new reform, and develop a comprehensive plan that addresses all
the elements o f the reform.
Statement o f the Problem
As more states enact legislation to end social promotion, districts and
schools will begin the work of developing intervention programs and strategies to
meet the needs o f students at risk o f not reaching grade level-standards. In order
to create highly effective and equitable programs that use the best practices,
research needs to identify the design elements of effective promotion and
retention policies, strategies, and programs being implemented at the district and
site levels. The design would not only include the elements of standards-based
reform, but also the components o f any state legislation on promotion and
retention.
Once districts and schools have identified the components necessary to
design effective programs, policies, and strategies, they must understand how to
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
implement them effectively into their organization. Even when the designs are
adequate and effective, they may not be fully implemented in a specific site or
district. Lack of implementation at either level could be the downfall o f even the
best-laid plans.
Further, what remains unknown is how districts and schools are changing
from the traditional view o f social promotion and retention to the new context
view. Understanding how the strategies and programs fit into the broader
standards-based reform is critical to the change process.
To date, little is known about the impact that new social promotion and
retention policies and strategies have on organizational structures and priorities,
or on student achievement. Educators need to determine and understand how to
effectively design and implement adequate and effective policies and strategies to
improve student achievement and reduce associated retention problems.
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose o f this study is to describe site and district social promotion
and retention policies and strategies, and to determine the extent to which
policies, strategies, and programs have been implemented in the district and
school. Further, the study will analyze the adequacy of the design, describe how
the design and implementation were carried out, and detail what impact the
strategies and practices have had to date.
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Questions
The following research questions are the subjects of data analysis and are
further treated in the conclusions and recommendations portion o f this study:
1. What is the design o f the district and school policies and strategies to
address social promotion and retention?
2. To what extent have the social promotion and retention policies and
strategies actually been implemented?
3. How adequate is the design o f the district and school’s social
promotion and retention policy and strategy?
4. How was the change process carried out in the design and
implementation of the district and school’s social promotion and retention policies
and strategies?
5. What is the impact of social promotion and retention on the district
and school policies, strategies, and practices to date?
Importance of the Study
Although social promotion and retention has been an issue that educators
have struggled with for years, President Clinton’s call for an end to social
promotion created the outside pressure to force schools into action. The hope for a
successful solution lies in the new standards-based reform movement. Although
the reform is in its early stages, promising results for improving the student
achievement o f all students have been noted. Within the context of standards-
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
based reform, identification and intervention for at-risk students is replacing the
traditional practice of retention and social promotion.
This study comes at an ideal time, as states are scrambling to create
policies that will put an end to the practice o f social promotion. Although the
focus will remain on districts and schools in California, policymakers nationally
may find this study useful in identifying policy designs for effective intervention
to avoid retention. Policymakers will gain a deeper understanding of how schools
and districts implemented California’s AB1626, and how other reforms and
policies aided in its implementation. Overall, the study will provide a clearer
picture o f how the legislative requirements in the new social promotion and
retention law in California are impacting schools and districts.
District and site leaders in education will also gain insight into the change
process and understand how another district or school formulated and
implemented strategies and programs to meet the needs of at-risk students. The
conceptual frameworks for traditional and new-context social promotion and
retention programs and practices will in themselves be useful to district and site
leaders for comparison with practices in their own organizations. Findings on the
implementation process and the hindrances and enhancers will further help
educational leaders to avoid some o f the trial and error o f implementation by
learning from another district.
This study will also be valuable to teachers who struggle with meeting the
needs o f diverse students. Ultimately, teachers will determine the success o f
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
programs and strategies through their implementation in the classroom. The more
data they have on successful programs and practices, the more likely they will be
to use them with their students. Identifying successful programs and practices for
catch-up will benefit teachers as they struggle in the classroom to hold all students
to high standards.
Limitations
The use of a qualitative case-study format may limit the study through
subjective interpretations of observations and interviews. The researcher could not
control the participants’ willingness to complete and return questionnaires.
Further, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations may be difficult to
generalize for other districts, because o f the unique conditions or qualities o f the
school and district chosen.
Delimitations
This study will use qualitative data in a case-study format. Data collection
will be completed during a two-week time period at the selected district and
school site. The data to be gathered will be limited to one Southern California
middle school in one district that has implemented a social promotion and
retention policy and is also well into implementing standards at all of their
schools. The size of this sample is small and may limit the ability to accurately
generalize from the results obtained. The sample for this study was not randomly
selected, but purposefully chosen in order to maximize the value of the data
obtained.
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Assumptions
One assumption is that the school selected for this study is well into the
implementation phase o f a retention and promotion policy and of standards-based
curriculum. It is assumed that collection techniques will provide valid and
adequate data for the purposes o f this study, and that all participants will respond
honestly in interviews and on questionnaires.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose o f this study, the following terms are defined as specified
below:
Accountability. Measures to ensure that responsible individuals
accomplish the goal o f improving students’ academic achievement. It entails
setting specific standards, interwoven with the continual process of assessing and
improving student performance (Schmoker, 1996). Individuals to be held
accountable for the results o f increased student achievement should also maintain
the responsibility and authority for program decision-making and resource
allocation. It is these individuals who will reap the rewards of success and suffer
any sanctions (Tucker & Codding, 1998).
Assessment. A tool, instrument, process, or exhibition composed of a
systematic sampling o f behavior for measuring a student’s competence,
knowledge, skills, or behavior. An assessment can be used to measure differences
in individuals or groups, or changes in performance from one occasion to the next
(United States Department o f Education, 2000).
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Catch-up strategies. Effective intervention strategies to help students at
risk of retention meet grade-level standards.
Conceptual framework. A conceptual framework is the diagrammatic
representation of the conceptual context of the study. The conceptual framework
includes, in graphic or narrative form, assumptions, key factors, concepts,
variables, and beliefs that support the study (Maxwell, 1996).
Content standards. Broadly stated expectations o f what students should
know and be able to do in particular subjects and grade levels. Content standards
define for teachers, schools, students, and the community not only the expected
student skills and knowledge, but what the schools should teach (Linn, 2000).
Educationally disadvantaged. Students with one or more of the following
five factors: (a) minority ethnicity, (b) living in poverty, (c) living with a single
parent, (d) having a mother with less than a high-school education, and (e) living
in a home where the primary language is not English.
In-grade retention. The practice of requiring students to repeat the same
grade a second time.
Intervention strategies. These are instructional strategies that are
incorporated into the curriculum to prevent students from failing in school. Such
strategies can include extended learning programs offering additional instruction;
classes on study skills; one-on-one tutoring; cross-age tutoring; changes in teacher
or classroom assignment; increased parental involvement; diagnostic assessment;
individualized education plans; and improved service delivery models for students
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and families who would benefit from school-linked integrated services (Rudolph,
1999).
Norm referenced test. An approach to testing in which a student’s score on
a test is interpreted by comparing it to the scores earned by a norming group
(Gall, Borg & Borg, 1996).
Policy. A policy is a definite course or method of action selected from
alternatives and in light o f given conditions to guide and determine present and
future decisions. It is a high-level overall plan embracing general goals and
acceptable procedures.
Social promotion. The practice of passing students who have failed to
master part or all o f the grade-level curriculum to the next grade with their age-
grade peers.
Standards-based education. Standards-based education refers to the search
for ways of thinking about and operating schools and school systems that ensure
that all students achieve defined and challenging standards of performance
(Tucker and Codding, 1998). A standards-based system consists of interlinked
elements that combine to promote effective use o f standards for the improvement
o f teaching and learning. The most important o f these elements are an integrated
system of assessment and accountability; necessary investment in retooling
through professional development, curriculum revision, and instructional
materials; local flexibility in implementation; and means of remediation for
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students not meeting the standards (Association o f California School
Administrators. 1996).
Standardized test. A test for which procedures have been developed to
ensure consistency in administration and scoring across all testing situations
(Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996).
Student at risk. A student identified as being at risk o f retention is
someone demonstrating a lack o f progress or poor performance in some or all
areas o f academics, daily school tasks/assignments, standard and/or curriculum
based tests, and overall demonstrating difficulties in mastery o f skills associated
with the grade-level expectations (United States Department o f Education,
1999b).
Organization o f the Dissertation
Chapter One summarizes the need for and importance o f looking at social
promotion and retention in the new reform era. The second chapter will explain
the current literature surrounding retention and social promotion, new reform
characteristics, catch-up strategies, the change process for implementing these
strategies, and statewide and district policies encouraging high standards.
Chapters Three and Four describe the design and execution o f the study and
present the data collected by the study and the findings o f the study. The final
chapter, Chapter Five, analyzes the data and addresses the five research questions
introduced in this chapter.
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents the literature reviewed for this study and provides
the foundation for the data collection and analysis in later chapters. The chapter
begins by providing the history of retention policy. The second section reviews
the traditional approach to retention, including the characteristics and effects of
this approach. The final section reviews retention from a new standards-based
reform paradigm. This section identifies the key elements of standards-based
reform, and reviews the literature on the implementation of this reform, other new
reform efforts, and national and state retention policies.
History of Retention Policy Development
The practices o f grade retention and social promotion have ridden the
academic teeter-totter for over a century. Currently, the practice o f retention is
"up,” while social promotion is being blamed for the poor academic performance
of students in America. The practice o f retention began in the mid-19th century as
schools moved to a system o f graded classes. In this system, students were
promoted to the next grade as they met the academic requirements for each grade
level (Harvey, 1994). In-grade retention was seen as a solution for slow learners
and immature children, and by the end o f the 19th century, up to 70 percent of all
students in any one year was affected by repetition (Karweit, 1991).
During the 1930s, social promotion increased because o f a shift in
psychology. During this time, research began to uncover the negative impact of
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
retention on children’s social and emotional well-being. Social scientists were
concerned that practice could damage children socially and emotionally (Goodlad,
1954; Sandin, 1944). They believed additional factors such as chronological age,
physical size, and social and emotional consideration should be looked at in
retention decisions (Steiner, 1986). In the 1970s. research found that promoting a
students who had not mastered the grade level curriculum was no more beneficial
than retaining them. A synthesis o f research from the 1980s further supported the
conclusion that retaining a student had negative effects on student achievement,
personal adjustment, self-concept, and attitude toward school. The affective
consequences of retention caused educators to advocate the use of social
promotion for several decades (Natriello, 1998).
Yet, even while research was confirming the negative effects of retention,
the 1980s saw the practice of retention once again totter up. With the launching of
Sputnik and the ensuing perception that American children were falling behind
academically, social promotion was pilloried as the culprit o f underachievement.
The release o f A Nation at Risk (1983) followed closely to support this perception
and to encourage policies that would hold students to high academic standards.
The report claimed that America was at extreme economic risk because o f student
underachievement. Social promotion was seen as a key factor in this “tide of
mediocrity,” as the report cited that approximately 13% of all 17-year-olds in the
United States could be considered functionally illiterate, while functional
illiteracy among minority youth might run as high as 40 percent (National
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Commission of Excellence in Education, 1983). Following this report, elected
officials and policymakers began demanding that educators be held accountable
for results.
Student Performance in America
Many reports have further added to the concern that America’s students
are not internationally competitive. The National Assessment of Education
Progress (NAEP) scores show that achievement hasn’t budged much since 1980
(Reese, Miller, Mazzeo, & Dossey, 1997). Over half o f our nation’s urban 4th
graders are reading below expected levels. Scoring the “basic level” on the NAEP
indicates that the student has only partial mastery o f prerequisite knowledge and
skills. On the Reading portion o f the 1998 NAEP, 62% o f 4th graders, 74% o f 8th
graders, and 77% o f 12th graders were only at the basic level.
In Maryland, New Jersey, and Louisiana, more than 70% of urban 4th
graders were reading below grade level. Standardized test scores in Chicago,
Boston, and Philadelphia support these findings in reading with similar results
(Stevens, Tuck, & Zimmerman, 1999). Since 1983, over 10 million Americans
have reached 12th grade not having learned to read at the basic level (Thomas B.
Fordham Foundation, 1998).
In the subject o f mathematics, the first International Study of Achievement
in Mathematics in 1967 showed American 12-year-olds finishing next to last
among 10 major industrial nations. The Third International Math and Science
Survey (TIMSS) in 1995 showed U.S. 8th graders posting math scores slightly
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
below the international average. Further, this study showed 12th grade students
below all other countries except Africa and Cyprus in the area o f math. In 1996,
the NAEP showed 64% o f 4th graders, 62% o f 8th graders, and 69% o f 12th graders
scoring at only the “basic level.” These findings augmented the fear that the
economic security o f America was being threatened by underachievement.
When current student performance is broken down by sub-group, more
disturbing data are apparent. Title 1 students, consisting of low-income students
or those eligible for free and reduced lunch, perform considerably worse than
their higher-income peers (National Council o f Educational Statistics. 1998).
Thirteen percent o f Title 1 students scored at the “proficient level” on the NAEP
reading assessment, whereas 40% of higher-income students scored at that level.
This disparity in performance is confirmed at the state level, with the most recent
result of California’s SAT-9 tests showing that students from low-income families
fell even farther behind their classmates (Howell, Miller & Frey, 2000).
Other groups that score considerably lower than their peers are minority
students, including Blacks and Hispanics. On the 1996 NAEP assessment. Black
students scored lower than their White peers in each age group and across all
subjects. Hispanic students, also, scored lower than Whites in each age group and
across all subjects. California’s 2000 test results further show the troublesome
gaps that remain for Black and Hispanic students. These two ethnic groups
performed the most poorly o f the ethnic groups and showed the least
improvement (Howell, Miller & Frey, 2000).
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reaction to Underachievement
Many educators believe the modem standards movement began with
A Nation at Risk (Berger, 2000). The reaction to the report was widespread
concern about our national direction in education. The state governors expressed
their unease with the educational preparation o f the nation’s youth and asked
President Bush in 1989 to gather state governors for an Educational Summit. The
purpose of this meeting was to address the problem o f underachievement in
America and to encourage educators to set challenging standards for all major
subject areas (Marzano & Kendall, 1997). One o f the goals outlined at the
Summit was to develop national standards in five core areas. Although national
standards stirred controversy, the states began the task of creating their own
standards (Berger, 2000).
Following the national agenda to hold students to high standards,
educational stakeholders attempted to raise achievement through the creation of
new policies. Some districts increased promotion and graduation requirements,
followed by the creation o f policies that based retention decisions on the single
measure of standardized test scores. Both o f these measures were grounded in the
belief that raising expectations and creating the threat of failure would motivate
students to do their best (Karweit, 1991).
Yet, despite higher standards for promotion and tougher course
requirements, the 1990s did not see a rise in student achievement. More high-
schoolers were enrolling in challenging academic courses, drop-out slightly
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
declined, and college attendance rose, but achievement remained flat. In fact, as
many as 30% o f entering college freshmen required remedial courses in reading,
writing, and math (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1998).
Responding to the media and academic and political reports, parents,
teachers, and politicians called for an end to social promotion (Stevens et al.,
1999). The alternative, grade retention, was very popular with the public. A 1998
Texas poll revealed that 78% o f its citizens viewed social promotion as a serious
issue in public schools (Stevens et al., 1999). In order to uphold high standards
and hold all students accountable for meeting those standards, President Clinton
directed Richard Riley, the Secretary of Education, to produce and disseminate
guidelines for educators and policymakers on effective approaches to ending
social promotion (Riley et al., 1999).
In spite o f research indicating the ineffectiveness of retention on student
achievement, many states have heeded the President’s directive and eliminated
social promotion. The impetus for the directive was clearly political, as studies
show that retained students do no better than children who are socially promoted
(Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1994; Holmes, 1989; Karweit, 1991; Shepard &
Smith, 1989).
As the political climate continued to reinforce strenuous academic
achievement, the retention rates soared, and some states were retaining as many as
20% of their students (Wheelock, 1999). A national study reported that 18% of
students in public and private schools had repeated at least one grade by the end
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
o f their 8th grade year (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1990). The
focus on raising standards and test scores failed to address systematic means of
helping all students reach the standards.
Effects o f Recent Student Accountability Policies
The legacy o f A Nation at Risk (1983) has been a national focus on
educational performance. One of the goals in Goals 2000 is having all students
meet high academic standards. While states and districts have implemented
standards and assessments to hold students accountable to that end. the issue of
equity often takes a back seat to excellence. According to A Nation Still at Risk.
America faces a profound test of its commitment to equal educational
opportunity. “This is a test o f whether we truly intend to educate all our
children.. .or whether we will settle for low levels o f performance by most
youngsters and excellence from only an elite few” (Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation, 1998). If the goal of the new reform is to get all students to reach
high standards, the issue o f equity must be addressed.
In looking at the issues related to retention, such as dropout rates, test
scores, and achievement, educational inequities are evident. Further, when student
performance is disaggregated by ethnicity, socio-economic status, and linguistic
proficiency, glaring inequities are apparent. In 1994, students retained in all states
reached approximately 4 million (Wheelock, 1999). Based on the U.S. Census
Bureau data of 1996, researchers estimate 15 to 19 percent of students are being
retained nationally (Light, 1998; Sheppard, 1987). This finding seems to
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
contradict the notion that social promotion is a rampant practice. Yet, the practice
appears to be more rampant for select groups o f students. Boys, minorities, and
students from low socio-economic backgrounds are consistently shown to be
more at-risk o f retention than other groups (Meisels & Liaw, 1993).
Based on the 1996 Census, it is evident that minority students continue to
be retained more often than white students. Statistics show that 50% o f Black and
Hispanic students aged 15-17, are older than what is typical for their grade levels.
Data from the 1998 National Educational Longitudinal study shows that by the
time students reach the end o f their 8th grade year, one o f three low-income
students has experienced at least one grade retention. The Commission on the
Skills o f the American Workforce maintains that society often communicates to
minority students and those bom into low-income levels, that they do not have the
necessary intellect and/or abilities to succeed. This in turn creates a self-fulfilling
prophecy, leaving students with unfulfilled dreams (National Center for Education
Statistics, 1990).
Retention is strongly correlated with dropping out o f school; therefore, it
is no wonder that the profile o f a dropout student mirrors the profile of a retained
student (Setencich, 1994). In 1990, statistics showed that more than 20% o f the
nation’s students drop out before high school completion, and the dropout rates in
some inner-city areas were as high as 50% (National Center on Education and the
Economy, 1990). In 1996,13% o f all Blacks aged 16-24 were not in school and
did not hold a diploma. Seventeen percent of first-generation Hispanics dropped
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
out, and 44% o f Hispanic immigrants in this age group dropped out (Forgione,
1998). Dropout rates for Hispanic and Black students are higher than for White
students, and Hispanics aged 14-19 is 50% less likely than non-Hispanics to
complete high school (Trueba, 1989).
Low academic performance and dropping out have also proved to be
alarmingly high for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students who do not receive
services (Gandara, 1997). Research shows that dropout occurs predominantly
with students in the lower socioeconomic status, and the high percentage is
minority (Hammack, 1986). The commonly held belief behind the “get-tough”
philosophy is that holding students to high standards will answer the problem o f
underachievement, when in fact, it has added to the problem, as more students are
dropping out o f school.
Another politically attractive approach to “getting tough” has been to
attach high stakes tests to promotion and graduation decisions. Proponents o f
these tests hope to target students who are being socially promoted (Archer,
1998). Yet, test data further validate the concern that a significant gap in
achievement exists between groups, and these statistics call into question the
validity and reliability of the tests.
The 1994, NAEP data showed 71% of white 4th graders at or above the
basic level o f reading, whereas only 31% of African Americans and 36% of
Hispanics scored that well. These differences also corresponded closely to
variation in social class. Among 4th graders whose parents graduated from
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
college, 70% were reading at or above the basic level. This dropped to 54% for
children of high school graduates, and 32% for children o f high school dropouts.
English Language Learners (ELL) also perform significantly lower on
achievement tests (Donahue, Voelkl, Campbell, & Mazzeo, 1999). At the 3rd
grade level, LEP listening skills are at about 80% of native proficiency, while
reading and writing skills in English are still below 50% o f native proficiency, yet
these students are expected to score at the 50lh percentile (Gandara, 1997). The
Stanford Achievement Test shows Black students average 200 points lower than
White students (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), and
statewide testing further documents the discrepancy between groups in
achievement (National Center for Education Statistics, 1990).
The favored response o f prohibiting social promotion and using high-
stakes tests to hold students accountable has actually contributed to the problem
of underachievement. As retention often leads to dropping-out, more students are
left without an education. Equally, basing promotion decisions on high-stakes
tests without providing interventions has little impact on achievement, and
disproportionately affects minority and poor children. In the words of Singham
(1998), “The educational gap is real and has serious social, economic, and
political consequences, but there are some educational strategies that provide
hope if we avoid simplistic, one-shot solutions’' (p. 5). And to counter these trends
and reduce the achievement gap, an inclusive approach to student diversity and
powerful instruction is needed.
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Traditional Practice o f Retention
Unfortunately, the traditional response to underachievement has been a
simplistic, one-shot solution: retention. As indicated previously, retention has
been politically driven and framed as an either/or debate. By narrowing the issue
to a pro versus con discussion, any solution to underachievement will most likely
overlook the necessary changes in pedagogy, instruction, and curriculum. Both
retention and social promotion attempt to remedy the problems after they occur,
rather than intervening before failure. The practices of retention and social
promotion have traditionally been used at certain grade levels, and each has a
greater impact on specific groups o f students as mentioned previously.
Retention is most often used at the kindergarten and first-grade level
(Alexander et al., 1994; Karweit, 1999; Meisels & Liaw, 1993; Shepard & Smith,
1989). Data from a study in California in 1988-89 showed that kindergarten had
the highest retention rate o f 5.74%, that is, one in every 17 students was retained.
In first grade, the rate was 4.35%, or one in every 23 students. According to
George (1993), one in every ten students spends an extra year in school before
second grade. In 1991, 11.3% o f first-graders were repeating first grade or had
repeated kindergarten.
A teacher’s beliefs about learning greatly affect his/her recommendations
for retention in these early grades. If teachers viewed child development as
occurring in a series of stages, they were inclined to retain students (Shepard &
Smith, 1986). This inflexible view of stages caused many teachers to feel that
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students should be given the “gift of time” and maturity. They believed that
developmental readiness could not be rushed even with intervention (Karweit,
1991). Current research on learning, however, contradicts the belief that learning
is linear, and it shows that the brain is a parallel processor. Unfortunately, many
still hold on to the old beliefs (Caine & Caine, 1997).
Other reasons for retention in the early grades are based on teacher
perceptions of the effectiveness of retention. Teachers often see that students do
in fact show an increase in achievement during the year o f retention within the
same grade level (Karweit, 1999). The short-term gains that teachers see in
retained students are viewed by the classroom teacher as positive, and leave them
with the sense that retention had a positive effect on the students (George, 1993).
What the teachers fail to see is the outcome in the students’ later years of
education. Studies show that although slight gains in achievement were observed
in students during the year they were retained, the advantage disappeared by the
end o f the third grade (House, 1989).
Many teachers also view retention as being supportive o f developing a
positive self-esteem. These teachers express the view that to pass a student on to
the next grade unprepared to do the work causes damage to the self-concept
(Owens & Ranick, 1977).
Therefore, such teachers believe that some students will benefit from a
second year of exposure to the same material. The assumption underlying this
belief is that the problem lies within the child, not in the instruction or the
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
curriculum (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 1998b; Karweit, 1991;
Oakes & Lipton, 1999; Shepard & Smith, 1989).
The role of quality instruction and curriculum is de-emphasized in student
achievement if the child is simply labeled as a problem learner. Students who are
retained are often forced to recycle through the same grade curriculum and
instruction without additional support, and without targeted individualized
interventions (American Federation of Teachers, 1997; George, 1993; Karweit,
1991; Meisels and Liaw, 1993; Shepard & Smith, 1989). Despite of the research
showing that teacher expertise is by far the single most important determinant o f
student performance, retention as traditionally practiced ignores the role o f
effective teaching to prevent failure (Darling-Hammond, 1998a). It seems that the
practice o f retention relieves schools of responsible teaching (Johnson, 1984).
In addition to the kindergarten and first-grade years, research suggests that
problems are more likely to occur during a transitional year, such as moving from
elementary to middle school, or middle school to high school (Baker & Sansone,
1990). Studies show that additional grades with significant retentions tend to be
grades 7 and 9 (Morris, 1993). Overall, based on the available research, the
prevailing thought is that retention is better suited to the early (K-3) grades.
Research further shows that the later a student is retained, the more likely the
child is to drop out o f school (Roderick, 1995).
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Profile of the Retained Child
The profile o f a retained child is fairly consistent in the traditional practice
o f retention. Several findings concur that boys, minorities, and lower socio
economic status students are more likely to be retained (George, 1993;
Mantzicopoulus, Morrison, Hinshaw, & Carte, 1989; Meisels & Liaw, 1993;
Roderick, 1994). Boys are retained more often than girls, and are more likely to
repeat kindergarten and/or first grade (Mantzicopoulus et al., 1989; Meisels &
Liaw, 1993). In 1995, 11% of male second graders had repeated a grade,
compared to only 5% of females. And also nationally, 21 % of males and 14% o f
females had been retained by grade eight in 1988 (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 1998).
Retention also disproportionately affects minority children. Although
accurate retention rates are often difficult to attain because districts are not
required to document that information, one way of tracking retention has been to
look at students who are over-age for their grade. In 1992, one study showed that
over half of Black 14-year-old males and 48.5% of Hispanic males of that age
were older for their grade and enrolled below the 9th grade year (Roderick, 1994).
Data from the 1995 National Household Education Survey shows that Black and
Hispanic second-graders were more likely than their White peers to have repeated
kindergarten and/or first grade. Twelve percent of Black children and 10% of
Hispanic children had repeated a grade, compared to 7% o f White children.
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data in Massachusetts also shows that grade retention for African-American and
Hispanic students is three times the rate for White students (Wilson & Wheelock,
1999).
Differences in retention rates by socio-economic status also exist
(Mantzicopoulus et al., 1989). Forty percent of repeaters come from the lowest
socio-economic quartile, as compared to only 8.5% from the highest quartile
(McCollum, Cortex, Maroney & Montes, 1999). In 1995, 10% o f the children in
poor families (at or below the poverty threshold) had repeated a grade in
comparison with 7% of second graders living in non-poor families (National
Center for Education Statistics, 1995). By the time students reach the end of 8th
grade, nearly one out of five has repeated a grade, yet more than one out of three
low-income students has experienced at least one retention (Wilson & Wheelock,
1999).
Other common characteristics in retained children include factors such as
being from a large family, living in the southeastern region o f the United States,
being a member of a linguistic minority, having a handicap, or being from a
family in which the head o f the household does not have a high-school diploma
(National Center for Education Statistics, 1998; George, 1993; Shepard, Taylor, &
Kagan, 1996; Karweit, 1999).
How Students Are Identified for Retention
The equity concern in the profile of the retained student emerges not only
from the statistics, but from the way in which students are identified for retention.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As traditionally determined, students are identified through the use of arbitrary
criteria that lack clarity, and consist o f weak assessment processes (American
Federation o f Teachers, 1997; George, 1993; Karweit, 1991; Meisels & Liaw,
1993; Tomchin & Impara, 1992). According to several studies, the evidence used
for making decisions regarding retention included one or a combination o f the
following: developmental factors, teacher grades, standardized tests, attendance,
and teacher recommendations (American Federation o f Teachers, 1997).
Many teachers use developmental factors in their decision to retain a child.
A model still in use to help teachers and administrators make retention decisions
is the Light’s Retention Scale. This problem-solving approach has educators
consider three categories o f factors when making a decision. The categories are
composed o f sixteen child-factors, five family-factors, and seven school-factors.
The scale uses a point system and gives a value to criteria such as age, emotional
background, physical size, attendance, and gender. Once the points are added, the
total places students in one o f five classifications for retention ranging from
excellent to poor (Cooke & Stammer, 1985). The intent o f this model is that, by
taking specific learner and family factors into account, better decisions can be
made for the child.
In many policies on retention, social and emotional maturity, physical
factors, age, and maturity, are mentioned as important factors to consider in
retention decisions (American Federation of Teachers, 1997). In middle schools
and junior high schools, some o f the most crucial factors in retention decisions
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
involve emotional maturity, and parental attitudes regarding retention (George,
1993). Often teachers recommended that a student should be retained if they felt
that the child might benefit from an extra year. If they felt that the child was a
“lost cause,” they would socially promote him or her.
Although teacher-assigned grades are given the most weight in retention
decisions, few districts have agreed-upon standards o f performance to support a
uniform grading policy (American Federation o f Teachers, 1997). Teacher-
assigned grades are often so variable that they do not provide reliable information
for making retention decisions (Feldman. 1997). Teacher recommendations are
also a large determinant in retention decisions. In middle and high schools,
teacher recommendations are often founded on the grades they assign students on
teacher-developed tests and homework; therefore, again, an objective, reliable
measure of student progression is lacking (Feldman, 1997).
Currently popular is the use of standardized test scores as the primary
basis for retention decisions. The use of arbitrary cut-off scores to decide
retention further adds to the concern with equity. African-American, Latino, and
Native-American, and ELL students do not, as a group, perform as well as white
students on formal tests (Betts, Rueben, & Danenberg, 2000). Limited English
Proficient (LEP) students score much lower as a group on the SAT-9 test than do
other students, and low socio-economic status (SES) is also highly correlated with
low achievement (Betts et al., 2000).
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
There are several dangers in identifying students with test scores. Placing
an increased emphasis on test scores to hold teachers and schools accountable
creates disincentives for teachers to allow heterogeneity in the classroom, and for
students to develop at their own pace (Roderick, 1995). Another danger is that
norm-referenced and multiple-choice tests do not tell what students have
mastered, but, rather, how they rank against other students (Darling-Hammond,
1994).
Further, basing retention on high-stake testing has negative consequences
for low-income. Black and Hispanic students for several reasons. The resources
available to these groups are typically unevenly distributed. Disadvantaged
minority children usually receive fewer challenging academic programs, and
schools with a higher concentration of minority students generally have less
demanding standards. Also, because disadvantaged students have less contact
with well-qualified teachers, test results close off, rather than open up future
opportunities. And, because the teachers that are least qualified are assigned to
low-ability classes, the disadvantaged students lack the quality instruction that
will prepare them for the standardized tests (Oakes, 1992). The identification of
students based on test scores may satisfy the overwhelming demand for
accountability, but it lacks reliability and justifiability.
In the traditional practice of identifying students for retention, there is
little use of formative assessments to drive curriculum and instruction planning.
Standardized tests and grades are typically used forjudging students, rather than
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
identifying students who need additional support (American Federation o f
Teachers, 1997; Darling & Hammond, 1998a; Darling-Hammond & Falk, 1997).
Policies on Retention and Social Promotion
Research also indicates that retention decisions are not supported by a
solid policy structure. In 1997, the American Federation o f Teachers completed a
study that reviewed research, and looked at promotion policies in 85 districts,
including the nation’s 40 largest districts. The results provide evidence o f unclear
policies based on weak criteria. The key findings are as follows: (a) many districts
implicitly support social promotion, and their policies declare retention the
“option o f last resort”; (b) most districts have no agreed-upon, explicit standards
of performance against which student progress can be judged, and on which
credible, defensible promotion decisions can be made; (c) teachers who have the
most knowledge o f students make recommendations, but rarely have final
authority on the decision; (d) many districts require students to be moved ahead
regardless of performance under certain circumstances; and (e) there is little
provision for programs to prevent or intervene with students who fall behind.
Policies on retention also vary widely according to several studies
conducted in the last three years. The nation-wide study by Education
Commission of the States (1999) on promotion and retention policies shows that
state policies differ greatly on their provisions for retaining students. Each state
uses one or a combination o f the following provisions: (a) student score on a
state/district assessment; (b) not expressly assessment based, but determined by
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
state board and local school board requirements; (c) not expressly assessment
based; expressly the decision o f local school board/school
committee/superintendent; and/or (d) based on classroom performance.
Even when criteria for retention are stated in the policy, the criteria lack
clarity. One example o f an unclear policy is taken from Hillsborough County,
Florida. The policy states '‘retention should be based on insufficient progress in
basic skills and on the student’s inability to apply basic skills to the study o f
academic areas” (Feldman, 1997). The policy does not clarify what insufficient
progress means, or in which academic areas the skills should be applied, or to
what extent the student is to apply the basic skills.
Students and the community were often unaware of how retention
decisions were truly made. The forewarning o f retention was often bureaucratic,
formal, and did not engage the parent in finding a solution. Most students were
likely to find out they were retained through a report card, not in face-to-face
interaction. In a study by House (1989), teachers seemed to avoid talking to
children about retention, and when they did, they often gave untrue explanations
about why the student failed. Teachers felt that by concealing the retention,
insofar as possible, from the child, they were avoiding the stigmatization the child
would feel.
As a result o f unclear policies and poor assessments to inform students
about their progress, many students at risk of retention are not identified early in
the year. Parents are often uninformed of a decision to socially promote or to
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
retain their child until the end o f the year (American Federation of Teachers,
1997; Karweit, 1991).
Interventions in the Traditional Practice o f Retention
Interventions for students who fail or who are socially promoted are
almost nonexistent. According to the report Making Standards Matter ( 1996).
only 10 states require and fund intervention programs to help low-performing
students reach state standards, and 8 additional states require intervention but do
not provide funds. The report found that existing interventions included: Parental
notification at 57.6%, tutoring at 15.3%, alternative programs at 12.9%, and
diagnostic testing at 11.0% (Harrington-Lueker, 1998).
The standard treatment for retained students is to have them repeat the
grade and go over the same materials, taught in the same way that they had just
failed to master (Riley et al, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Byrnes, 1989).
Retention is a popular way to improve poor school achievement, but recycling
children through the same or similar curriculum has little value to the child or
society (Cooke & Stammer, 1985; Byrnes, 1989). Research shows that students
retained and re-taught the same material, using the same instructional practices,
usually do not catch up with their peers. Retention is not an effective remedial
strategy or intervention, and it leaves the child with a perception of punishment
and stigma rather than a way to help them catch up (Bymes, 1989).
Other interventions include the use o f “transition classrooms,” delayed
entry into school, and extra-year programs. Transition classes, which are typically
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
found at the kindergarten level, show negative results on student achievement
(House, 1989). And neither delayed entry nor the extra-year programs prove
effective approaches to reducing school failure (May, Kundert, & Brent, 1995).
After numerous studies, Shepard and Smith (1986) declare that there are
simply no set criteria for determining retention - which is appalling, as the
practice causes the child to lose a year. Hauser (1999) also found that decisions to
retain students were often based on criteria that were not educationally sound.
Impact of Retention on Students
Research consistently shows that traditional retention practices fail to
benefit students academically or socially (Foster, 1993; Harvey, 1994; Holmes,
1989; Shepard and Smith, 1989). A meta-analysis o f 63 studies on retention
discovered that, on average, retained children are worse off than their promoted
counterparts in both personal adjustment and academic outcomes (Foster, 1993;
Holmes, 1989). Despite the frequent use of retention in kindergarten, Shepard and
Smith (1990) found no benefit from kindergarten retention, nor did grade
retention improve the adjustment o f deveiopmentally immature students (Shepard
and Smith. 1989).
The few advantages that are noted in studies include a slight gain in
achievement, but any gain disappeared within two years (Karweit & Wasik, 1992;
Shepard, 1989). Early elementary students did show initial academic
improvement from retention. Peterson, DeGracie, and Ayabe (1987) reported that
retained first graders performed better than non-retained students on standardized
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reading and math, but not language, tests the first year following grade repetition.
Those gains were only temporary, however, and by the third year, the group
differences no longer existed (Peterson et al., 1987). In spite of popular opinion,
retention does not close the educational gap, nor leave retained students
performing at acceptable levels (Karweit, 1999).
As noted, retention is also strongly associated with dropping out o f school
in later years (Grissom & Shepard, 1989; Roderick, 1994), whereas a second
retention makes dropping out a virtual certainty (Setencich, 1994). Slavin (1993)
sums up the effect o f retention by saying, “Success in early grades does not
guarantee success throughout the school years and beyond, but failure in the early
grades does virtually guarantee failure in later schooling” (p. 15).
Literature on grade retention points out the reasons that retention puts
students at risk o f school failure and dropping out. First, grade retention does not
“fix” the problem and does not prepare the student to meet the academic demands
the following year. Second, retention is seen as a failure of and by the students.
And finally, it makes a student overage for his/her grade during adolescence,
which increases the likelihood that they will feel frustrated and become
disengaged-and even drop out (Roderick, 1994).
Students who are retained suffer lower self-esteem and view retention as a
punishment and a stigma, not a positive event designed to help them improve their
academic performances (Byrnes, 1989; Thomas et al., 1992). The National
Association o f School Psychologists also affirmed the negative consequences in
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
its report that retained children tend to have low self-esteem, get into trouble, and
dislike school. Retention is especially traumatic for children who view' it as
punishment and a highly stressful event (Setencich, 1994; Shepard & Smith,
1990). Studies comparing retained and comparable non-retained control-group
students found that retained students do more poorly on follow-up measures of
social adjustment, attitudes toward school, behavioral outcome, and attendance
(Holmes, 1989; Meisels and Liaw, 1993). As with students who are socially
promoted, often those students who repeat a grade are treated as “lost causes,”
and teachers assume that such students have limited potential and, therefore, the
teachers have low expectations (Riley et al., 1999).
Qualitative studies o f adolescents often conclude that retention
exacerbates disengagement from school and leads to increased frustration at doing
poorly (Roderick, 1995). Students who repeat a year are more likely than their
younger classmates to manifest behavioral problems, and when students are older
than their classmates, they tend to have more behavioral problems in adolescence
(Portner, 1997). Negative effects seem to occur more often when students are
retained later in their school careers (Roderick, 1995).
An overwhelming amount of research shows that the practice o f retention
takes a year away from a child and leaves him/her likely to drop out o f school
with no real benefit in achievement. All sources agree that social promotion
without any interventions to help students meet grade-level standards is equally
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
insidious, and it would be hard to find another educational practice on which the
evidence is so unequivocally negative (House, 1989).
Fiscal Implications of Retention
The traditional practice o f retention is not only educationally unsound but
also fiscally unsound. The annual cost to U.S. school districts o f retaining 2.4
million students in 1990 was nearly $10 billion, and the per-pupil cost was $4,051
(Shepard & Smith, 1990). Economically, grade retention is a poor use of
education dollars, because it increases the cost of education without any benefits
for the retained child (Byrnes, 1989). “By every standard o f evidence, logic, and
compassion, dollars used preventively make more sense than the same dollars
used remedially” (Slavin et al., 1993, p. 14). Slavin, Karweit, and Wasik (1992)
contend that even very expensive early interventions can be justified on cost-
effectiveness grounds because they reduce the need for later and continuing
remedial and special education services, retention, and other related costs.
Retention from a New Perspective:
Standards-Based Reform
Rather than working within the traditional framework o f social promotion
and retention as a bi-polar issue, the new standards-based reform movement
focuses its attention on interventions before failure to ensure that all students meet
standards. The Association of California Administrators writes in a September
1998 position statement that “it is time to recognize that neither social promotion
nor retention solves the basic problem o f students’ lack of success. Neither
requires a change of pedagogy, content and curriculum. Neither examines the
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
underlying reasons why a student fails to meet standards” (Merrick, McCreery &
Brown, 1998, p. 5).
Standards-based decisions offer a new way o f thinking designed to unite
excellence with equity, and help raise student achievement. The standards-based
reform movement embodies three types o f standards: content, performance, and
opportunity-to-leam standards (McLaughlin & Shepard, 1995). Content standards
address what students should know and be able to do. Performance standards
address the question ‘‘How good is good enough?” And opportunity-to-leam
standards define the level and availability o f programs, staff, and other resources
that enable all students to meet challenging content and performance standards
(McLaughlin & Shepard, 1995).
This new' reform has changed the focus o f education from teaching to
learning. This shift requires educators to address not only curriculum, assessment,
and instruction, but also scheduling and structural designs, as well as allocation of
resources, professional development, teacher preparation, and the roles and
responsibilities o f all stakeholders in education. Tucker and Codding (1998)
define standards-based education as a search for ways of thinking about and
operating schools and school systems that ensure that all students achieve defined
and challenging standards of performance.
Hill and Crevola (1999) explain that the difference between this reform
and previous reforms “is the degree o f focus and commitment to the goal o f
ensuring that all students achieve defined and challenging standards of
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
performance, the coherence and depth o f the beliefs and understandings that
underpin the response, and the rigor and sophistication with which every aspect o f
schools and school systems is examined, redesigned, and managed to ensure that
high standards are achieved” (p. 121).
Key Elements of the Standards-Based Reform
Belief
The new standards-based reform is based on the belief that all students can
learn and achieve at high levels (Darling & Hammond, 1998; Darling-Hammond
& Falk, 1997; Harrington-Lueker, 1998; Oakes & Lipton, 1999; Tucker &
Codding, 1998; Wheelock. 1998). Therefore, educators’ beliefs are foundational
to the new reform. Unless teachers believe that they can make a difference and
have a commitment to doing so, the impact o f the other elements is seriously
diminished. The belief that the overwhelming majority of students can make
progress, given sufficient time and support, is supported by research in the field o f
cognitive science. Research confirms that almost all students can engage in
higher-order learning given the right conditions (Glaser, 1984). Further, standards
have been proven to help low-income schools succeed (Barth et al., 1999).
Content and Performance Standards
A standards-based system is predicated on developing content standards
that establish essential curriculum in each academic subject area. Standards
answer the question “What must students know, understand, and be able to do?”
Simply having and relaying clear expectations to students have proven to improve
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
student achievement. A 10 to 35% increase in student achievement was noted in a
control group when standards were clearly defined in the schools and classrooms
(Marzano & Kendall, 1997). Standards can also provide equality of opportunity to
ensure that all students meet the same expectations and are provided with
appropriate resources to meet them (Berger, 2000).
Content standards must be followed by performance standards to define
"How good is good enough?” These specifications identify the levels of
achievement that students must reach. Having clearly articulated curriculum and
performance standards moves away from the traditional approach of retention by
providing objective criteria on which to base retention decisions. Once
performance standards are established, assessments are developed to measure
student performance against the standards’ criteria.
Assessment
Assessment in a standards-based system takes on a new meaning. The
intent o f assessment becomes informative. It allows the students to know where
they stand in meeting the standards, and provides the teacher with valuable
information to guide instruction. The National Center for Fair and Open Testing
(1995) came up with seven principles and indicators for student assessment
systems, which include: (a) the primary purpose o f assessment is to improve
student learning;
(b) assessment for other purposes support student learning; (c) assessment
systems are fair to all students; (d) professional collaboration and development
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
support assessment; (e) the broad community participates in assessment
development; (f) communication about assessment is regular and clear; and (g)
assessment systems are regularly reviewed and improved.
Within the new standards-based reform, formative assessments are
frequently used to drive curriculum and instruction planning and to identify
students needing additional support (American Federation o f Teachers, 1997;
Darling & Hammond, 1998; Darling-Hammond & Falk, 1997; Madden & Slavin,
1989; Slavin & Fashoia, 1998; Slavin & Madden, 1989). The authors, Schmoker
(2000) and Darling-Hammond (1994), are both concerned that unless states move
away from sorting mechanistic assessments to providing diagnostic supports and
quality formative assessments, the standards movement could actually widen the
achievement gap between the advantaged and the non-advantaged in our society.
Assessment in the new reform is formative, frequent, and uses multiple
measures, while allowing flexible approaches to meet the needs of a diverse
student population for reaching those standards (Tucker & Codding, 1998).
Assessment is different from traditional testing. Testing is most often used to
make comparisons and terminal judgments about performance through a
de-contextualized procedure. Assessment, on the other hand, provides a multi
faceted analysis of a specific performance in the light o f learning outcomes,
standards, and criteria, while being mindful of the performer and the context o f
the performance (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Viewing retention in the new
reform context, assessment becomes the means o f ensuring that a student’s
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
deficiencies are identified through multiple measures, so that individualized,
targeted interventions are developed.
Accountability
Once content and performance standards are in place and assessment
practices are aligned with those standards, an accountability plan is necessary for
holding all stakeholders responsible for student achievement. High standards
cannot be established and maintained by simply imposing them on students
(Hauser, 1999). Making one group accountable, while exonerating another, will
not produce the intended results (Merrick et al., 1998). Students must be expected
to produce high-quality work, and teachers must be expected to develop lessons
that engage students in powerful learning experiences that lead to the achievement
of standards (Merrick et al., 1998).
If standards are to improve schools and to help children learn,
accountability must be tied to those standards so that everyone knows what is
expected. The design must be used to help schools improve and students to learn,
rather than designed to identify and punish poor-performing schools and students
(Gratz, 2000).
In designing an accountability program. Tucker and Codding (1998)
advise: (a) choosing the student performance standards and, (b) the indicators that
will be used to drive the incentive system and the measures o f progress to be used.
Following the selection of standards and indicators, Tucker and Codding (1998)
suggest using the following principles: (a) develop incentive systems that will
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
motivate students to reach the student-performance standards, (b) develop
incentive systems for school faculty and others that will reward those who
contribute to improved student performance and provide consequences for those
who fail to do so, (c) create a resource-allocation system that will align control
over resources with accountability for results, (d) create an organizational
structure for accountability in which everyone knows what he or she is
responsible for and in which responsibilities are distributed in a way that
corresponds to accountabilities, and (e) create a powerful and fair opportunity to
learn, and a set o f professional practices that are linked to student and system
accountability (Tucker & Codding, 1998).
Equitable Learning Opportunities
Providing opportunities for education without being accountable for
educational outcomes is not adequate, just as holding students accountable for
reaching high standards is not fair if students do not have powerful and equitable
opportunities to leam (Tucker & Codding, 1998). One o f the greatest barriers
against equitable opportunities to leam is teacher ability. Research shows that the
relationship between teacher knowledge and student achievement is high
(Darling-Hammond & Ball, 1997). Yet, schools with a high concentration o f
minority students, disadvantaged students, and students with greater needs have
fewer well-qualified teachers, and the least-qualified teachers are often assigned
to low-ability classes (Oakes, 1992).
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Studies show further that students who have highly effective teachers three
years in a row, score as much as 50 percentile points higher on achievement tests
than those who have ineffective teachers (Betts et al., 2000). Several studies
found that the disparities between Black and White students’ achievement is
largely due to the differences in the qualifications of the teachers (Darling-
Hammond, 1998a). A Harvard University study found that teacher quality
(measured by education, experience, and test scores on teacher licensing exams)
has more impact on student achievement than any other single factor (Jones,
2000). Another study, from the University o f Tennessee, found that the quality o f
teaching in a student’s past accounts for differences in standardized test scores o f
as much as 50 to 60 percentile points (Jones, 2000).
Good teaching goes a long way toward reducing the achievement gap. If
poor and minority children had teachers o f the same quality as other children, half
of the achievement gap would disappear (Haycock, 1998). The inequities in the
distribution o f qualified teachers are not only in low socio-economic schools, but
studies show that poor White children are more likely to have well-qualified
teachers than poor Black children (Kain & Singleton, 1996). Studies in
Tennessee, Dallas, and Boston all confirm the same finding: the teacher is the
single most important factor in student achievement (Haycock, 1998).
Professional Development
In order to address the achievement gap, not only do the most
disadvantaged schools need to make every effort to hire well-prepared teachers
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
who understand content, teaching methods, and learning, but the system must
encourage a new type o f professional development for teachers. Teachers need
continuous professional development that weaves together content, pedagogy, and
discussion of beliefs about intelligence and how students can leam at high levels
(Raymond, Wlodkowski, & Ginsberg, 1995). Professional development should be
structured and focused on effective teaching so that teachers can meet the learning
needs o f each student in the class (Hill & Crevola, 1999).
Good teachers use developmentally appropriate instruction and curriculum
to reduce the retention o f immature children. This type o f instruction has proved
to reduce retention by viewing each child as a unique person with an individual
pattern o f growth (George, 1993). Good teaching also includes the use of
culturally responsive instruction to ensure motivation and engagement (Raymond
et al., 1995).
Catch-up and Intervention Strategies and Programs
Many intervention strategies and programs have proved successful in
increasing student achievement, and in helping students catch-up. Use of
research-based programs and practices, and a consideration of current learning
and motivational theory are guiding interventions and catch-up strategies. They
provide early identification o f students who need additional assistance, and also
provide for targeted individualized interventions, which are lacking in the
traditional practice o f retention (American Federation o f Teachers, 1997; George,
1993; Karweit, 1991; Meisels and Liaw, 1993; Shepard & Smith, 1989).
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Some o f the strategies that require structural changes include class-size
reduction, early literacy initiatives, year-round schooling, ungraded schools, and
small schools (Achilles, Finn, & Bain, 1998; Fooreman, 1998; George, 1993;
Cooke & Stammer, 1985; May et al., 1995; Oxley & McCabe, 1990). The use o f
smaller classes with more individualized instruction and increased remedial-
instruction opportunities has proved to be effective in increasing student
achievement. Factors in smaller classes that contribute to increased achievement
include greater interaction between teacher and pupils, more individualization o f
instruction, better diagnosis o f each child’s learning needs, possibilities for more
active involvement o f students in learning tasks, and less time spent on classroom
management (Folger, 1989). Research further shows that all students benefit from
small class size, and nonwhite students benefit even more (Achilles et al., 1998).
Therefore, not only does class-size reduction benefit all students, but it also helps
narrow the achievement gap.
Early intervention in developing reading proficiency has been extremely
beneficial in helping students succeed. The 1996 California Reading Initiatives
incorporate teacher in-service training in effective reading instruction and the
early prevention o f reading difficulties (Education Commission of the States,
2000). Children who do not leam to read during the primary grades may endure a
lifelong struggle with reading (Foorman, 1998). Reading proficiency is an
indicator of retention; therefore, interventions must address reading early in a
child’s education. Research also shows that effective strategies in reading include
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers knowing and using multiple strategies in order to teach all students to
read (Education Commission o f the States, 1999). A focus on early reading keeps
low-performing students, mainly o f minority status, from being “tracked” into
illiteracy, and thus from becoming politically and intellectually disenfranchised.
Year-round schools have been successful for educationally disadvantaged
students, as they otherwise do not receive the same enrichment over the summer
months. Year-round education has also been successful in preventing retention
caused by excessive absences, especially for Hispanic students who go to Mexico
for weeks in the winter (George, 1993). Ungraded schools and ungraded classes
have also proved successful as they allow students to progress through the grades
at their own pace (Cooke & Stammer, 1985; George, 1993; May et al., 1995).
Research on small schools also shows that students at all grade levels leam more
in small schools than in large schools, and at-risk students are much more likely
to succeed in small schools than large (Oxley & McCabe, 1990).
Several externally developed school-restructuring strategies have been
effective in helping students catch-up. The Reading Recovery Program identifies
the lowest 20% o f readers in first-grade classrooms and brings them up to the
level o f their peers through intensive one-on-one tutoring and individualized
instruction (George, 1993). Students who participated scored the equivalent o f 20
percentile points higher than comparison groups o f children, and the gain has
lasted over time (Pinnell, DeFord, & Lyons, 1988).
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Henry Levin’s school reform, Accelerated Schools, shows that
remediation left students further behind their peers as they progressed through
school, so he decided to create a process to accelerate the learning o f students
(Slavin & Fashola, 1998). The strategy in this approach is to reduce the use of
remedial activities and to adopt project-based learning and constructivist teaching
strategies.
The Success for All Program is designed to ensure that every student in
the low socio-economic-status schools reaches third grade on time and performs
at grade level (Slavin & Madden, 1989). This program specifically avoids the use
o f retention, and demonstrates the strongest results for students in the lowest
quartile (George, 1993).
Other strategies suggested for improving student achievement and helping
students catch up include the following: individualized; targeted instruction; one-
on-one tutoring; improved curriculum and instruction; pre-kindergarten and all
day kindergarten; and combination classes in the early grades associated with
developmentally appropriate instruction (Slavin et al., 1993; George, 1993; May
et al., 1995).
The key to all effective programs is that it not only enhance the learning of
the targeted group, but of all students (Fashola, Slavin, Calderon, & Duran, 1997).
Jeanne Oakes identified two philosophies on ways to look at supporting students:
one is to build the capacity of the system to serve all children well, and the other
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
is to identify a particular group of students to help. The new reform bases its
practice on building the capacity to serve all children well (Oakes, 2000).
Research shows that many students fail at transition grades, and extra
support is needed at these critical times. Prevention o f failure at these times
includes school-wide approaches for welcoming, orienting, and providing social
support and enhanced home involvement. These measures have been effective for
transitioning students into middle school (UCLA School o f Mental Health
Project, 1998). Schools that develop programs that ease transitions for students
and increase communication between schools may be able to reduce student
failure rates (Baker & Sansone, 1990).
Learning Theories to Ensure the Success of All Students
O f particular importance in California is the use of a culturally inclusive
pedagogy, and the restructuring of schools for cultural inclusion. California serves
an extremely diverse population, with up to a fourth o f the students needing to
learn English (Williams, 1998). In order to meet the needs o f all students, schools
must introduce cultural inclusion into the strategies and programs designed
(Hollins & Spencer, 1990). The pedagogical implications o f this include building
trust, culturally responsive instruction, and high standards stated clearly, which
also convey the belief that all student can do well (Ogbu & Simons, 1998).
Teachers must teach in a culturally relevant manner and practice a pedagogy that
empowers students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Ladson-Billings,
1992).
New learning theories move away from the “deficit model” of teaching to
inclusive instruction focusing on the socio-cultural aspects o f learning (Oakes &
Lipton, 1999). Past programs and strategies tended to focus on the presumed
linguistic and cultural “deficits” of students by providing compensatory programs.
The emphasis has now shifted from “fixing the students to fixing the schools.”
Students are now seen as fully competent linguistically and cognitively. The
challenge is how to remold the traditional school to fit the educational needs o f
ELL students (McLeod, 1994).
In fact, the whole standards movement is a rejection of the traditional
deficit model for a resiliency model. For years, money went into research to
discover what factors put students at risk. Currently, research is scrutinizing
protective factors to find what traits, conditions, and situations alter or reverse
predictions of negative outcomes and enable individual students to succeed.
Resilience research shows that a teacher’s belief in the innate capacity of students
starts the change process, that all people have innate resilience, and that most
high-risk youth can and do “make it.” The protective factors that build resiliency
include caring relationships and high expectations (Burgoa, 2000).
Recent psychological literature and studies indicate that motivation is
necessary to increase student achievement. One study supports the use of
standards as a means o f motivation for improving achievement. Studies on the
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
effects o f goal-setting (standards) and measurement (assessment) indicate that, in
general, measuring results contributes to improved performance or increased
achievement (Bardach & Lesser, 1996).
The American Psychological Association listed fourteen learner-centered
psychological principles in 1997 for creating a framework o f school redesign and
reform (McCombs & Whisler, 1997). Motivational influences on learning include
student emotional states, beliefs, interests and goals, and habits of thinking. To
address this principle, schools should have practices, policies, and structures that
support a positive school environment and culture that values and appreciates
diversity. Other principles that deal with intrinsic motivation assert that learning
occurs w hen conditions of support are present. To increase his/her intrinsic
motivation, a learner’s creativity, higher-order thinking, and natural curiosity
must all be activated (McCombs & Whisler, 1997).
When students are motivated, they put forth more effort. But some
students may need extra guided practice and support. Because students develop
differently, learning is most effective when differential development is taken into
account through factors such as flexible scheduling and curriculum. Social
interactions, interpersonal relations, and individual differences also influence
learning. Therefore, effective catch-up strategies will take into account the fact
that learning is most effective when differences in the learner’s linguistic,
cultural, and social backgrounds are acknowledged (McCombs & Whisler, 1997).
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fiscal Feasibility
The realization of standards-based reform has obvious fiscal implications.
As the focus o f school reform has shifted from inputs to student achievement,
school finance needs to shift its focus from equity to adequacy (Odden, 2000).
Allan Odden (2000) explains the benchmark of new school finance as '‘whether it
provides adequate revenues per pupil for districts and schools to deploy
educational strategies that are successful in educating students to high
performance standards” (p. 467). Based on the resources needed to help each
student reach specified standards, adequate revenues must be provided to schools
and districts. New reform focuses on high achievement for all students, while
stressing accountability. In a nation-wide push for student accountability, state
legislators are calling for an end to social promotion. To get all students to meet
high standards, and to avoid retention and social promotion, a finance system
must address the issues of capacity, teacher quality, and adequate funding for
interventions.
In Tennessee’s STAR research, class-size reduction was shown to have a
positive effect on student achievement. Teachers have greater ability to provide
individuated instruction and ongoing, formative assessments with fewer students.
One result o f reducing class sizes is the need for more rooms. This has a direct
impact on the fiscal ability of the school or district, and must be addressed.
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher quality is also shown to have a direct impact on student
achievement. Studies in Tennessee, Dallas, and Boston imply that if educators
would provide poor and minority children with teachers o f the same quality as
other children, about half o f the achievement gap would disappear (Haycock,
1998). Again, this conclusion has direct fiscal implications. To recruit and retain
well-qualified teachers in urban and poor schools may require salary incentives or
bonuses. Producing qualified teachers will also cost money. Although, in
California, BTSA (Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment) provides some
funding for beginning teachers, continual professional development will be
required to maintain well-qualified teachers.
Although the preceding measures attempt to meet the needs o f all students,
some students will need extra intervention and support. School-wide intervention
programs, such as Reading Recovery and Roots and Wings, come with a large
price tag. Subject-, grade-, or content-specific interventions cost money in terms
of teacher time and materials. Schools must be provided with the finances to
adequately support the needs o f their students.
The essential elements in standards-based reform will inform a good
retention and promotion policy, and keep districts out of legal problems. A good
policy will build in all necessary supports to avoid retention, yet have clear,
consistent, fair standards to which all students are held accountable. A good
policy will use multiple measures, rather than a single standardized test score for
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
retention decisions, and will provide for frequent and formative assessments to
identify students at-risk o f retention early in the year.
Implementation of Standards-Based Educational Reform
The national concern with the quality o f public education in the United
States has created a recent focus on the issues o f accountability for student
achievement and teacher quality. States are working to implement many o f the
elements o f the new standards-based reforms. All states except Iowa have
developed statewide standards (Jones, 2000). Although the quality o f the
standards in the various states is uneven, California ranks at the top o f the list
according to the American Federation o f Teachers. California has adopted content
standards in English, Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and History-Social
Science, and every district is required to adopt standards at least as rigorous as the
standards adopted by the California State Board o f Education. After California
adopted content standards, they set targets for meeting those standards. The
Academic Performance Index (API) and the California Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999 constitute the accountability and incentive
arrangements for meeting those targets (California Department o f Education,
2000).
California is behind many other states, however, when it comes to an
aligned accountability system. Kentucky and Massachusetts, for example, have
already carefully aligned state standards with student assessments. But California,
is measuring its state standards by a nationally normed test that does not match
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
those standards. The state assessment (SAT-9) has not been fully aligned with the
state standards, and the accountability and incentives are not linked to
performance standards. Although the state is “augmenting” the test to provide
alignment, it may reconstitute hundreds o f schools and fail thousands o f students
before it can validate the use o f the augmentation (Gratz, 2000). To hold students
accountable, California is presently requiring students to pass the High School
Exit Exam (HSEE) beginning in 2004, and to meet all grade-level standards
before being promoted, as mandated by the Pupil Retention and Promotion and
Retention law (AB1626) prohibiting social promotion.
Accountability
At least 32 states have accountability systems based on test scores
(Raymond et al., 1995). Testing has become the driving force behind the retention
issue, and attaching high stakes to newly mandated tests has become politically
popular. Califomia-along with several other states and districts have put in place
testing for promotion and graduation decisions. Yet the ability o f these policies to
improve the quality o f education is questionable. Despite its political popularity,
test experts are counseling against using a single measure to make such important
decisions (Archer, 1998).
The use o f standardized test scores as the sole determinant o f retention is
not only legally questionable, but its validity is questionable also (Feldman,
1997). Evidence shows that standardized testing policies are not having the
positive effects they were thought to have, and are ignoring many types o f
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
knowledge and performance that are expected from children. These policies also
delimit student opportunities to learn in important ways such as tracking, retention
in grade, and graduation (Darling-Hammond, 1991).
This issue has been politically charged, and because policymakers must
define standards in terms o f measurable outcomes, and in order to make standards
more concrete and understandable, they use test scores as if they were standards.
Those test scores then become the determinants o f holding back students. Looking
at the issue in a legal context, we find that many districts are under attack as they
sort out whether using test scores to determine promotion can withstand civil-
rights challenges. Twenty-one school districts in North Carolina have been
named in a complaint to the United States Department o f Civil Rights alleging
African-American students score disproportionately below the level needed to
pass new competency exams, and that districts vary widely in their efforts to raise
achievement (Harrington-Lueker, 1998).
One county in North Carolina was actually hit with a class-action suit for
basing their retention policy on the single measure o f a standardized test. The
plaintiffs claimed that the policy is unfair and detrimental to minority and special-
education students-4.1 % o f White students, 11.4% o f Black students, and 10.2%
o f Hispanic students were up for retention based on the test scores (Kennedy-
Manzo, 1997). Concern abounds that minority students would suffer most if
districts were not prohibited from linking promotion or graduation to new tests.
The concern for racial minorities, linguistic minorities, and poor students is that
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
high-stakes testing will distort and narrow the already substandard instruction
they often receive (Oakes, 1992).
The disparate and negative effect on minorities o f retention based on rigid
standards (high-stakes testing) thus opens the door to challenges based on racial
discrimination (Archer, 1998). Another challenge to high-stakes tests occurred in
the Chicago Public Schools when they used a test score as the measure for
promotion. Black students were retained more than 5 to 1, and Latino students
more than 3 to 1 Caucasian students, thus identifying a disparate impact.
The finding by the U.S. Department of Education was that an educational
decision that will have a major impact on a test taker should not be made solely or
automatically on the basis of a single test score. They suggest other relevant
information about the student’s knowledge or skills should also be taken into
account (Office of Civil Rights, 1999). A review o f the legal ramifications
connected to retention shows that states and districts should use multiple criteria,
avoid radical changes, and not disproportionately affect any single minority group
or they will be subject to lawsuits (Stroup & Zirkel, 1983).
Policies on promotion and retention must be grounded in research, and
separate policies should be included for elementary, middle, and high-school
levels (Roderick, 1994). The National Research Council issued a strongly worded
objection to the use o f high-stakes testing as the basis for promotion-retention
decisions (Archer, 1998). Unintended consequences o f high-stakes testing could
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
include schools piling on homework, failing more students, teaching to the test,
and seeking ways to rid themselves o f low performers (Gratz, 2000).
Some states are already using multiple measures to hold students and
schools accountable. In Texas, schools are being held accountable for cognitive
and non-cognitive measures such as student performance, attendance, and dropout
rates (Frey, 2000). Although California plans to hold schools accountable through
multiple measures, they currently use only the Stanford Achievement Test-ninth
edition (SAT-9) to determine a school's Academic Index Performance (API)
(California Department o f Education, 2000). Some states have gone the extra step
and heeded wise advice to use other forms of assessment (other than multiple-
choice tests). Maryland, Kentucky, and Vermont also use writing samples and
tests o f critical thinking.
In their attempts to hold schools accountable for the achievement of all
students, several states have included sub-groups of special education, English-
Language Learners (ELL), low-performing students, and economically
disadvantaged students in their testing data. Some states practice complete
inclusion on the tests, whereas some introduce special assessments or exempt
them from the tests. The debate over including these various groups in their
testing data is over the question o f how schools can be held accountable for the
performance or progress o f students with special learning needs if the test results
are not considered a valid measure o f their achievement (Frey, 2000).
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Goals 2000 and the Improving America’s Schools Act state that all
students, including English-language-leamers, are expected to attain high
standards. Even the accountability provisions in Federal education mandates. Title
I and Title VII, are framed around the need to demonstrate that students in these
programs meet state and local performance standards.
The problem is that assessments suited to the needs of ELL students are
unavailable. Under Title I law, adequate yearly progress toward standards is
required, especially for the economically disadvantaged and LEP (limited English
proficient) students. LEP students are held to the same standards on the same
timeline, yet on average they may need more time to meet the standards,
especially if they have limited prior schooling (August & Hakuta, 1997). The
research base for defining the most important and effective resources and
conditions for ELL students is very weak.
States deal with these sub-groups differently. Florida excludes ESL
(English as second language) students with less than two years in the program and
provides accommodations after that time. Texas provides a reading and math
assessment in Spanish in 3 rd through 6th grades, but the high-school graduation
test must be taken in English. New York does not make English learners take the
test if they score below the 20th percentile on an English reading test (Frey, 2000).
California seems to be more restrictive in excluding ELL test scores and requires
all English learner take the test if they have lived in California for at least a year
(California Department of Education, 2000).
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To be certain that all subgroups are improving as measured on state
assessments, several states disaggregate the test scores by race or ethnicity, socio
economic status, and/or grade level. In California, the API score is utilized to give
more points for improvement to low-performing students. Texas holds schools
accountable for all subgroups of students by saying that 50% or more of the
students in each grade and subgroup based on ethnicity and income level must
pass the state assessment (Texas Education Agency, 1999). And Michigan
requires that Title I schools increase the performance of their lowest-performing
students (Frey, 2000).
Fiscal Influence on Change
Ending social promotion has tremendous fiscal implications. Until the
benefit of supporting reforms and interventions can be realized, retaining large
numbers o f students will place an enormous strain on the physical capacity of
schools, and will incur higher staffing expenses. A crisis o f overcrowding could
follow, as it did with the implementation o f California’s class-size reduction
(Stevens et al., 1999).
But money spent up front could save large amounts o f money in following
years. The Reading Initiative is a good example of the long-term cost savings.
According to the Center for Special Education Finance, the U.S. spends almost $8
billion a year on special education services. Most of these services are related to
language disabilities, including reading, writing, and spelling. States and districts
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
could cut special education costs and boost reading skills through better
prevention programs (Frey, 2000).
Policies to end social promotion must be based on the awareness that it
will take a great deal o f effort and resources to help students who do not meet
standards. Chicago anticipated that it would cost $63 million just to provide
summer school to over 80,000 students in 1999 (Riley et al., 1999).
Levers of Change Implementation
At the federal level o f education, Title I and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have aided movement towards an
accountability system. Title 1 funding has also helped to create potential for
fundamental school-wide reform for students at risk (Fashola & Slavin, 1998). In
1994, Title I began requiring states to identify challenging content-performance
standards, to develop high-quality assessments, to measure yearly progress, and to
identify low-performing schools. Changes in IDEA also require states to assess
and provide accommodations for disabled students. Whereas in previous reforms
accountability was based on the number and types of educational inputs such as
teachers, textbooks, and computers, the current reform holds schools and students
accountable for outputs or achievement (Gratz, 2000).
Federal reform programs prove successful levers for change. One study
showed that sustained implementation occurred when schools used federal
compensatory education funds to create or adopt, and then sustain new programs
that they would not have considered otherwise. “In the hands o f instructionally
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
focused, creative educational administrators and teachers, Chapter 1 became the
primary engine for reform in otherwise distressed schools” (Stringfield et al.,
1996, p. 10).
Other than federal levers, other factors in the change process help ensure
successful implementation. Findings in a longitudinal study for educating
disadvantaged children show that schools achieving the greatest gains were those
that paid a lot o f attention to issues of initial and long-term implementation and to
institutionalizing the reforms (Stringfield et al., 1996). Such reforms cannot be a
passing fad for schools, or they will not be successful.
Several factors aid successful implementation of comprehensive plans to
increase student achievement. The National Education Goals Panel (1998)
analyzed the significant and sustained gains in academic achievement in North
Carolina and Texas through the use o f NAEP data and the states own assessment
data. The study found that gains in achievement are attributable to the policy
environment established in each state. The keys to a successful environment are
(a) aligned standards, curriculum, and assessments; (b) school accountability for
the improvement o f all students; and (c) critical business support for sustaining
these changes over time (National Education Goals Panel, 1998).
Role o f States and Districts in Implementing Change
Hill and Crevola (1999) identify the role for states and districts in
implementing policies and establishing a framework to support schools in the
movement to standards-based reform. The primary tasks o f states and districts are
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to do the following: (a) determine standards and set system-wide and school-
specific, year-by-year targets; (b) focus school support services and available
funds on achieving the standards and targets; (c) put in place accountability and
incentive arrangements linked to performance against standards and targets;
(d) conduct periodic full-cohort testing to monitor performance against the
standards and targets; and (e) conduct or sponsor research and evaluation o f those
programs and designs that have been identified as most useful in meeting the
standards and targets (Hill & Crevola, 1999). Margaret Goertz, co-director o f the
Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the University o f Pennsylvania,
supports this framework and adds that the success o f the system also requires
stability and reciprocal accountability to support educators and students (Frey,
2000).
Many states have implemented rewards and sanctions. Kentucky
distributed over $54 million directly to teachers and administrators in schools that
qualified for rewards based on their performance between 1995 and 1998 (Olson,
1998). Most states, however, are focusing less on rewards and more on negative
sanctions, as there is little research to support the belief that rewards motivate
educators to produce more.
Accountability systems need balance. Many o f the systems created are
shifting responsibility away from districts and onto schools and students. A
caution from Gary Hart, former California secretary o f education, is to keep a
delicate balance of consequences for the individual student and consequences for
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the school. Some states such as Kentucky and Maryland set high standards, but
leave the high-stake consequences at the school level and not at the student level.
Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia have in place a more balanced approach
that holds students accountable through graduation standards (Frey, 2000).
Other New Reform Efforts
The United States Department of Education published an inventory of
resources describing the complementary reforms designed to end social
promotion (Riley et al., 1999). The Reading Excellence Act o f 1999 focuses on
strategies for creating extended learning opportunities, for providing high-quality
classroom instruction, and for strengthening parental involvement and investment
in early childhood awareness. Class Size Reduction is another federal reform
aimed at hiring new teachers, reducing class size, and providing funding to boost
teacher quality through recruitment, hiring, and training (Riley, 1999). Smaller
class size allows teachers to provide more individualized instruction and more
frequent assessment. As research has shown that class-size reduction benefits all
children, it is a reform that supports at-risk students (Achilles et al., 1998). In
order for class size reduction to be successful, professional development is
necessary to support teachers.
Because o f research that indicates teacher quality has the greatest impact
on student achievement, instructional quality is a growing concern. Teacher
ability is so intricately tied to student achievement that states are looking for ways
to hire, train, and retain quality teachers. “State standards and assessment
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sometimes have an influence on what is taught, but they rarely have any effect at
all on how well anything is taught” (Slavin & Fashola, 1998). California is
addressing this issue through the funding of the Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment (BTSA) program. Twenty states in 1997 started induction programs
such as BTSA to provide new teachers with comprehensive assistance from
mentor teachers (Ruenzel, Miller, Howell, & Perry, 1998). In California, the high
rate o f growth in student enrollment and current class-size reduction has
emphasized the teacher shortage problem.
Retention Policy Under Standards-Based Reform
California, along with several other states, publicly criticized social
promotion and was in the forefront o f creating a state policy to abolish the
practice (Ruenzel et al., 1998). To hold students accountable, many states have
now implemented state promotion policies. The California Assembly Bills 1626
and 1639 require districts to retain students who do not meet certain performance
criteria, and to provide summer school funding for those students.
California Policy
The state policy attempted to hold districts and schools accountable for
providing identification, interventions, and early notification for any student at-
risk o f retention. It further holds students accountable for meeting specific,
district-developed criteria for promotion. The policy includes the following
provisions: (a) districts are required to approve a policy regarding promotion and
retention between second and third grade, third and fourth grade, fourth and fifth
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
grade, the end of the intermediate grades and the beginning o f the middle-school
grades, and the end o f the middle-schooi grades and the beginning o f the high
school; (b) the policy shall base the identification o f pupils between the second
and third grades, and the third and fourth grades primarily on reading proficiency;
(c) the policy shall base the identification of pupils between the other grades
primarily on the basis o f reading, English language arts, and mathematics; (d) the
policy shall identify pupils who should be retained and who are at risk to be
retained on the basis o f either the results o f the STAR test and/or pupil grades and
other indicators chosen by the district; (e) the policy shall require early parental
notification if a student is at risk, and indicate the manner in which opportunities
for remedial instruction will be provided; (f) teachers are to make the decision to
promote or retain a student. If a teacher promotes a student who is not considered
proficient, the teacher must provide the reasons in writing, and make
recommendations for interventions; (g) if more than one teacher works with a
student, one teacher must be specified as responsible for the decision; (h) there
must be an appeal process; (i) retained students must be provided direct,
systematic, intensive remedial instruction; and (j) other pupils at risk for retention
may be provided the above supplemental instruction (California Department of
Education, 1998).
Comparative District Retention Policy Analysis
Long Beach. Several districts have taken the lead in creating retention
policies that include targeted intervention and support o f students at risk of
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
retention. Long Beach Unified School District is one of the lighthouse efforts in
this area. Their comprehensive approach provided alternative settings for students
who are retained, as well as focusing on powerful teaching. According to their
policy, retention can occur at grades 3, 5 and 8. The decision to retain is based on
multiple criteria, and includes consideration o f special education and LEP
students.
Specific program standards, interventions, and program options are spelled
out in the promotion and retention standards of each district. Students are
identified early (in October), and interventions must be in place before retention is
recommended. Prep Academy was created for 8th graders with two or more Fs on
report cards under the premise that “making students repeat the same classes with
the same teachers wouldn’t address the reasons why they had failed in the first
place” (Stevens et al., 1999). Eighth-grade retained students enter the Prep
Academy with a student-teacher ration o f less than 30:1. They attend this school
for a minimum o f one year and focus on basic skills.
In the 5th grade, retained students enter a literacy class with a student-
teacher ratio o f 25:1, that focuses on literacy three hours a day and math one hour.
They recruit the best teachers for this class. The 3rd grade retained students enter a
program called the Reading Initiative with a student-teacher ration o f 15:1
(James-Ward, 2000)
If a child is retained, the district wants to give him/her the gift o f time and
a different program. There are formal assessments four times a year, and students
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
who do poorly are on close watch. The SAT-9 is not an assessment used to
determine retention. Strange as it sounds, retention is an option only if the
interventions offered in the district are able to help the student catch-up. For
example, if a student is failing because o f excessive absences, the child will not be
retained. Interventions in Long Beach Unified School District include: extended
day/week programs, such as Saturday School; extended year programs, such as
summer school and intersession; one-on-one peer and cross-age tutoring;
intensive 6-8 week reading clinics; intense small-group instruction; adult mentors;
and district developed assessment (Devries & Cohn, 1998).
Chicago. Although Chicago public schools took the lead in ending social
promotion in 1996, their program was not as comprehensive as that of Long
Beach Unified. Chicago’s effort to end social promotion includes a policy that
considers retention in 3rd , 6th, and 8th grades, as determined by standardized test-
score cutoffs on the ITBS (Iowa Test o f Basic Skills). The goal o f the policy seeks
to use the threat o f retention as an incentive to motivate students to work harder
and to encourage parents to take more responsibility for their child’s education. If
that does not work, the second goal is to focus teacher attention on those students
who are not meeting standards (Roderick, et al., 1999). Students who are at risk o f
not mastering the material are given extended instructional time during the school
year through a program named Lighthouse. Lighthouse provides the funds to
extend the school day and offers a centrally developed curriculum that focuses on
reading and mathematics.
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
If students do not pass the test before the end o f the school year, the policy
specifies a Summer Bridge program that provides students even more intensive
instruction in the two core subjects. Students attending Summer Bridge are
offered smaller classes and a second chance to pass the test cutoff (Roderick, et
al., 1999).
Finally, if the student does not pass at the end o f summer school, the
policy requires the student be retained. Schools with high retention rates are given
more resources to help students’ catch-up. Retained students are also required to
attend the Lighthouse after-school program. Resource students, LEP students with
less than three years o f English, and waiver students are not retained. (Roderick et
al., 1999).
Chicago’s policy taught educators that putting money into outside
programs, such as the Lighthouse and Summer Bridge, showed short-term
improvements in student achievement. In fact, from 1997 to 1999, the pass rate
for first-time test-takers in the 3 rd grade rose from 51% to 64%. Yet, much
research shows that focusing money on outside programs rather than changing
instruction will not create the long-term lasting improvement in achievement that
are desired. Without a comprehensive policy linking the assessment to standards
and instruction, Chicago will continue to battle the following arguments o f critics:
(a) the policy encourages too great a focus on test preparation and basic skills
drills; (b) the practice of retaining students has not shown significant increases in
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
achievement; and (c) linking decisions to a single test score is not a sound
practice.
If standards and accountability are to survive and support student learning,
significant changes in implementation must occur. State leaders must strictly
follow professional standards, and new policies must be evaluated based on sound
research. States need to publicize what is known about how children learn and are
motivated, and students must be treated in accordance with their developmental
needs (Gratz, 2000).
To end the practice o f social promotion (and retention), a comprehensive
effort is essential. High standards must be accompanied by balanced and
appropriate measures o f accountability that hold students and schools responsible
for student performance. The effort must include intensive and extensive scrutiny
o f teaching quality, curriculum, and alignment o f standards to assessments, as
well as identification o f and intervention for those students at risk.
Summary of the Literature Review
This chapter presented the literature reviewed for this study. The history of
retention policy led to the review of the traditional approach to retention. The
final section reviewed retention from a new standards-based reform paradigm.
This section helped identify the way in which the new-context approach to
retention and social promotion tie into the larger reform o f standards-based
education in efforts to help all students meet standards. The literature
demonstrates the need for districts and schools to incorporate this reform into
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
social promotion and retention policies. The next chapter, Chapter 3, explains the
methods used to research the ability of a specific district and school to incorporate
such reformation.
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study is a part o f a larger study to investigate the design,
implementation, and impact o f the new social promotion and retention policy in
California. A research team o f fifteen doctoral students each conducted an
individual case study to gather data on how schools and districts are designing
and implementing programs to comply with California’s AB 1626. The combined
data will provide even greater insight into strategies and programs that are
effective for reducing retention and social promotion, as well as enhancing
increased generalizability. The individual studies will analyze a combination of
elementary, middle, and high school levels, in addition to a balance of Northern
and Southern California districts.
The purpose of this specific study will be to investigate the design,
implementation, adequacy, and impact o f AB 1626 on one Southern California
middle school and its district. The focus will be on the identification of key design
elements and implementation strategies that are effective in reducing the need for
both social promotion and retention. This chapter describes the design, sample,
instrumentation, data collection, and methodology employed in the study.
Five research questions address this purpose:
1. What is the design o f the district and school policies and strategies that
address social promotion and retention?
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. To what extent have the social promotion and retention policies and
strategies actually been implemented?
3. How adequate is the design o f the district and school’s social
promotion and retention policy and strategy?
4. How was the change process carried out in the design and
implementation o f the district and school’s social promotion and retention policies
and strategies?
5. What is the impact o f social promotion and retention on the district
and school policies, strategies, and practices to date?
This study is a descriptive-analytic qualitative case study, limited to one
middle school in Southern California. The researcher will collect data on the
district and schools programs, policies, and practices regarding social promotion
and retention, using multiple methods. The use o f multiple methods will enhance
the validity o f the study through the process o f trianguiation. Research methods
used will include interviews, observation, questionnaires, and researcher ratings
based on evidence gathered. The instruments were developed using conceptual
frameworks, and the conceptual frameworks were based on a combination of
research and current legislation so as to identify the key elements addressed in the
research questions.
Sample and Population
As this study is part o f a larger study, the goal is to achieve a sample
representing the elementary, middle, and high-school level in both Northern and
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Southern California. This specific study will focus on one middle school in a
Southem-Califomia school district. The school was chosen based on the
following criteria: (a) having a promotion and retention policy in place for at least
one year that addressed the new legislation, and (b) having implemented
standards-based instructional reform. Additional criteria included selecting from a
middle-to-large size district with a diverse student population. Using these
criteria, Southern Border Middle School in Sunny Union School District was
chosen for the study. To maintain the district and school’s anonymity, the names
o f the school and district are fictitious.
District. Sunny Union School District was identified as a progressive
district in the process o f fully implementing standards-based curriculum,
instruction, and assessment into its schools. The district serves approximately
19,300 students in a diverse community. It is made up o f thirteen K-5 and nine K-
6 elementary schools, one 7-8 middle school, and four 6-8 middle schools, eight
state preschools, and one early childhood school for special education students.
Over 48% o f the students in the district are eligible for free and reduced lunch,
while those eligible for Title 1 services exceed 58%.
The students represent a variety o f ethnicities and languages. Twenty
percent o f the district students are second language learners. Thirty-seven
different languages are represented in the district. The majority of second-
language learners, 71%, speak Spanish, 18% speak Chaldean and/or Arabic, 4%
Kurdish, 1.2% speak Tagalog, and 5.8% speak another language. The ethnicity of
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students in the district is 65% White, 24% Hispanic, 7% Black, and 4% other
ethnicities.
The district website corroborates its commitment to standards-based
instruction. The site includes Power Point presentations on the topic, key
standards, various state content-standards resources, and resources to help
teachers create standards-based lessons.
The district has adopted standards in language arts, math, social studies,
and science. District-developed alignment charts correlate the standards, texts,
and skills tested on the SAT-9 and in district assessments. The district has been
offering standards-based workshops for the last two years, and grade-level teams
are working closely to align their instruction to the standards. The district
assessments include reading, writing, and math and are given several times during
the year. The district also currently has a Standards-Based Report Card
Committee that hopes to begin piloting a new report card later in the year.
District goals reflect the priority it gives to standards as well as to its
students. The goals include: (a) upon completion o f eighth grade, students will
have reached or surpassed State and District academic standards; (b) students
develop positive attitudes toward self, others, school, and education; (c) the
community is confident the district is achieving its goals; (d) employees believe
the district is a quality place to work; (e) employees are effective in their areas of
responsibility; and (f) the physical assets of the district are adequately and
appropriately maintained.
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
During data collection for this study, the district was in the midst o f
negotiations with the teachers’ union. Disagreement ensued on the increase in
teacher pay and was escalating to the point of teachers demanding a strict
adherence to working only the contracted day. This meant that many after-school
programs had to be cancelled, as staffing was unavailable.
School. The school was chosen for its diversity and “inner-city”
reputation. The 6-8 middle school totals 1099 students, o f which 383 are 6th
graders, 334 are 7th graders, 323 are 8th graders, and 59 are Special Day Class
(SDC) students. The total number o f languages in the school is fourteen, and the
ethnicity of the students consists o f 43% White, 41% Hispanic, 11% Black, 2%
American Indian, and 1% each o f Asian, Pacific Islander, and Filipino. The
school is a Title 1 school, with the percentage of free and reduced lunch over
80%.
This school, herein designated as Southern Border Middle School, is an
improvement school and has been identified by the state as an Immediate
Intervention for Underperforming School Program (IIUSP) school. Because it fell
into this category, it was eligible to apply for a CSRD (Comprehensive School
Reform Demonstration) grant. The first year of implementation was 1999-2000,
following a year of planning. The reform model chosen for the school was
Ventures, because it permeated the whole school, and the techniques were to
teach children how to problem-solve and think critically.
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The different programs offered at the site include GATE (Gifted and
Talented Education), ELL, Title 1, Special Education, and After School Hours
Programs. The ELL programs include two Newcomer Classes, Core Curriculum
Classes (including ELD Content, Sheltered Immersion, and SDAIE), and English
Language Development. The total number o f ELL students is 423, while the
Newcomer Class includes 48 students. The number o f special-education students
includes 60 RSP (resource) students, 67 Speech, 80 SDC, and 10 MDC students.
The staff at the school consists of 56 certificated teachers, 2 counselors, 2
assistant principals, 1 principal, and 50 classified staff.
Educational Leaders. A district administrator and a school-site
administrator were chosen to interview. The district administrator is the Assistant
Superintendent o f Educational Services and a White female. Her experience
includes sixteen years as an elementary teacher at all grade levels. Following her
classroom experience, she was recruited as the Literacy and GATE coordinator in
Education Services for four years. For five years, she was the principal at an
elementary school in the district, and then she moved on to become Director o f
Instructional Services. She is in her third year as Assistant Superintendent. Her
position thrust her into the leadership role o f creating policy to meet the
requirements o f AB 1626.
The school-site administrator is the principal o f the school, and a Hispanic
male. He began as a classroom teacher at a high school in Texas. He then became
a Reading Specialist in New Mexico while completing his Masters in Bilingual
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Education and Reading. Next, he began teaching kindergarten, while continuing
his education and getting his Jurisdoctorate Degree at a nearby law school.
Feeling a greater personal fulfillment in working with children, rather than
in law, he moved into a principal’s position. He is a trainer for California School
Leadership Academy (CSLA) and teaches modules in History/Social Science and
ELL. He is currently working with other trainers to develop an Improvement-
School module to assist school leaders struggling with identified underperforming
schools.
Teachers. The principal chose one of the lead teachers interviewed in this
study. She assisted the researcher in scheduling teacher observations and
interviews, and student interviews. She is not currently acting as a classroom
teacher, but as a full-release, Title 1 Coordinator whose position puts her in
charge of coordinating the monitoring process for all students identified as at risk
o f retention. This teacher began in the business field and entered education as a
second career. She spent 12 years as a Special Education teacher and Resource
Specialist while receiving her Master’s in Curriculum. For the last two years, she
has been a full time Title 1 Coordinator.
The Title 1 Coordinator chose the second teacher interviewed for this
study. This teacher was a leader at the district level as well as at the site level. She
was instrumental in the development and implementation o f reading standards in
the district. She has 20 years experience teaching reading, history, and sheltered
classes. Although Reading is a required class for 6th graders, it is an elective class
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for 7th and 8th graders. She is the only full-time Reading teacher for these grade
levels.
In addition to the two preceding teacher interviews, the Title 1
Coordinator identified four other teachers for observations and interviews. The
selection was based on the teacher’s willingness to spend his/her prep time
speaking with the researcher. As the timing for data collection was strained by
negotiation problems, the Title 1 Coordinator, Principal, and researcher were very
careful not to create tension by requiring teachers to accommodate the researcher.
Therefore, selection of teachers was also based on a teacher’s willingness to
participate.
Forty-two teachers participated in filling out the questionnaire. Although
several refused to list their ethnicity, the staff consists 38 White, one Black, one
American Indian, and two Hispanic certificated teachers. According to the School
Accountability Report Card, 45 teachers possess credentials, whereas only seven
were working on Emergency Credentials. Those who filled out the questionnaire
were all credentialed.
Students. Seven students participated in a one-on-one interview with the
researcher. Three of the students had been retained. One was a seventh-grade,
Hispanic male with a SAT-9 reading score in the 3 rd percentile, and a math score
at the 11th percentile. The second retained student was a sixth grade, Hispanic
female who scored in the 11th percentile in reading and the 8th percentile in math.
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The third retained student interviewed was an eighth-grade Hispanic male in the
22n d percentile in reading and the 16th percentile in math.
Two socially promoted students were interviewed. One student was an
eighth-grade Hispanic male in the 18th percentile in both reading and math on the
SAT-9. The second socially promoted student was an eighth grade Caucasian
male in the 6th percentile in reading and the 16th percentile in reading.
Two students who were identified as at-risk the preceding year, but had
caught-up were also interviewed. One o f these students was a sixth-grade
Vietnamese male who scored in the 6th percentile in both reading and math. The
second student was an eighth-grade Hispanic male in the 9th percentile in reading
and the 11th percentile in math.
Instrumentation
As the study was qualitative, conceptual frameworks were developed to
guide the creation o f the instruments. Through a collaborative process in the
summer of 2000 at the University o f California, Dr. David Marsh facilitated
fifteen doctoral candidates in developing the instrumentation for this study. These
tools were developed by using key research as the foundation o f each instrument.
The team developed the instruments and frameworks during a six-week seminar
in Accountability and Improving Student Performance. Members o f the team met
on several additional occasions to refine the instruments and to discuss data
collection.
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Three instruments were developed to gather data for this study, which
included a teacher questionnaire, a case-study guide, and a researcher-rating form.
The instruments were developed through the use o f conceptual frameworks that
served as the basis for the data-collection instruments. The framework for each
question is explained below.
Framework for the first research question. The first research question asks,
“What is the design of district and school policies and strategies to address social
promotion and retention?” To provide a guide for collecting data on the district
and school policies and strategies, Description o f Policies and Strategies, CFb
(Appendix A), was designed. This framework CFb consists of the statutory
elements required by the state, as well as other design choices that research has
shown important in preventing or reducing social promotion and retention. CFb
has two sections, the first o f which deals with the design of policies and strategies
and includes the following elements pertaining to research question one:
1. The process for policy and strategy development.
2. Overview of the design.
3. Policy and strategy dissemination.
4. Policy and strategy implementation.
5. Policy and strategy funding.
Framework for the second research question. The second research
question asks, “To what extent have the social promotion and retention policies
and strategies actually been implemented?” The sub-questions include, “What
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
does the practice look like?” “How does it work?” and “To what extent does it
actually enhance other district/school reform elements?”
The second section o f CFb deals with the second research question and
identifies five design elements important in social promotion and retention
policies and strategies:
1. Identification o f at-risk students.
2. Intervention for at-risk students.
3. The decision to socially promote or retain a student.
4. Post retention or social promotion.
5. Policy and strategy monitoring: linking policy to practice.
Framework for the third research question. The third research question
asks, “How adequate is the design of the district and school’s social promotion
and retention policies and strategies?” Two sub-questions are identified for
research question three and ask, “To what extent does the design o f the district
and school’s policies and strategies align with the traditional view, the new
context view, and state statutory requirements?” and “To what extent are they
intended to enhance standards-based reform?”
One of the conceptual frameworks used to determine the adequacy of the
design is Description o f State Policy - CFc (Appendix B). This framework states
the key elements o f the California Education Code (California Department of
Education, 1998) pertaining to Pupil Promotion and Retention. The key areas
identified for analysis are these:
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Local policy on pupil promotion and retention must address students
between second grade and third grade; third grade and fourth grade; fourth grade
and fifth grade; the end of intermediate grades and the beginning o f middle-school
grades.
2. Criteria for retention shall be based on STAR results and the minimum
levels o f proficiency or grades and other indicators of academic achievement.
3. Minimum levels o f pupil performance on STAR shall be required for
satisfactory performance in the next grade.
4. Exception to retention criteria as recommended by the student’s
regular classroom teacher shall be specified.
5. New local policy shall be designed to assure early parental notification
when a student is identified as being at risk of retention; a process through which
the decision o f the teacher to retain or promote a pupil may be appealed; early
identification in the student’s school career and school year; and, remediation
opportunities for students who are recommended for retention or who are
identified as being at risk o f retention
6. Exceeding retention criteria if retention is determined to be appropriate
for the student.
7. Supplemental instruction for students in grades two through nine who
have been retained to include summer-school programs and those o f direct
systematic and intensive supplemental instruction.
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8. Programs o f supplemental instruction for students in grades two
through six who have low scores to include programs o f direct, systematic, and
intensive supplemental instruction. Low scores include low STAR testing results
in the areas of mathematics, reading, or written expression or other evaluation
criteria pursuant to Education Code §37252.5(b).
9. Program implementation to include supplemental educational services
provided during summer school, after school, on Saturdays, or during
intersession, or any combination thereof. In addition, an intensive remedial
program in reading or written expression, as well as active involvement o f parents
and classroom teachers in the development and implementation o f supplemental
instructional programs.
To further measure adequacy o f the policies and strategies, Descriptive
Comparison of New Context and Traditional Context Social Promotion and
Retention Policies and Strategies-CFd (Appendix C) identified the characteristics
present in the two contexts. The characteristics o f the traditional-context policies
and strategies were based on the work o f the American Federation of Teachers
(1997), Darling-Hammond and Falk (1997), Karweit (1991), Meisels (1989), and
Shepard and Smith (1989). The elements of the new context were identified for
analysis based on the work o f the American Federation o f Teachers (1997),
Darling-Hammond (1998a, 1998b), Darling-Hammond and Falk (1997),
Harrington-Lueker (1998), the University of California at Los Angeles School o f
Mental Health (1998), and Wheelock (1998).
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The characteristics of the traditional and the new-reform contexts are
compared in CFd. The following components act as the framework for
comparison: (a) beliefs, (b) policy context, (c) grade levels, (d) sub groups,
(e) curriculum, instruction, and programs, (f) formative assessment,
(g) summative assessment, (h) assessment data, (i) identification for intervention,
O ') interventions, (k) responsibility, (1) accountability, (m) decision-making for
social promotion or retention, (n) notification, (o) post-social promotion or
retention, and (p) policy and strategy monitoring.
A third framework, Description o f Standards-Based Reform-CFe
(Appendix D), was developed to identify the ways in which the school and district
policies and strategies on social promotion and retention fit into broader strategies
of standards-based reform. CFe identifies the key elements o f standards-based
reform and includes: (a) standards, (b) assessment, (c) instruction, (d) curriculum,
(e) personalization, (f) climate, (g) organization, (h) leadership, (i) teacher
professionalism, and (j) accountability. CFc and CFd address sub-question one,
whereas CFe addresses the second sub-question.
Framework for the fourth research question. The fourth research question
asks, “How was the change process carried out in the design and implementation
o f the social promotion and retention policies and strategies?” The sub-questions
include, “What factors contributed to or hindered the process o f change?” and
“What did participants perceive would improve social promotion and retention
policies, strategies, and practices in the district/school?”
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To identify key elements o f the change process, Description o f the Change
Process-CFf (Appendix E) was developed. Through a review o f the literature on
the change process, eight elements were identified as critical to fully
implementing social promotion policies and practices within the New Reform
Context. These elements are taken from the work of Fullan (1990), Marsh (1988),
McLaughlin (1990), and McLaughlin & Marsh (1978). To ensure full
implementation, the following key elements are required:
1. The commitment to the new-context social promotion and retention
policies and strategies and standards-based reform by the Governing Board,
district, and school leadership is functionally and symbolically important.
2. The initial motivation o f teachers and others is important, but
resistance cannot be allowed to stop the new-context social promotion and
retention policies and strategies and standards-based reform.
3. The content o f the reforms matters as much as the process, and fidelity
to the goals of the new-context social promotion and retention policies and
strategies and standards-based reform are required.
4. The new-context social promotion and retention policies and strategies
and standards-based reform need to stay true to their original purpose and not
become down-sized.
5. Fully implementing new-context social promotion and retention
policies and strategies and standards-based reform requires a great deal of
ongoing professional development that values the knowledge and expertise of the
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school’s teachers, but seeks to improve them as well. The content o f the
professional development is based on research, and the training modules are based
on Joyce and Shower’s (1980) levels o f impact: (a) awareness, (b) concepts and
organized knowledge, (c) principles and skills, and (d) application and problem
solving.
6. The new-context social promotion and retention policies and strategies
and standards-based reform need to be seen as integral to school and student
achievement.
7. Developing cross-role teams is needed to share expertise across a
teaching staff, and to ensure that students who need it receive the necessary
additional support they require.
8. The new-context social promotion and retention policies and strategies
and standards-based reform need to be viewed as a process, not as an event, and
they need the commitment o f a number o f years to be fully implemented.
Framework for the fifth research question. The fifth research question
asks, “What was the impact o f the social promotion and retention policies and
strategies to date?”
The framework Description of Intended Results-CFa (Appendix F), was
developed to serve as the basis for data collection for the final research question.
This framework identified nine possible areas that could be impacted by the
district and the school’s policies and strategies. The areas of impact are as
follows:
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Impact on organizational beliefs at the district and school levels.
2. Impact on organizational priorities at the district and school levels.
3. Impact on organizational practices at the district and school levels.
4. Impact on instructional practices.
5. Impact on student beliefs, motivation, and learning.
6. Impact on parent and community support.
7. Impact on student achievement: increased student performance on
multiple measures o f achievement.
8. Impact on social promotion and retention rates.
9. Impact on drop out rates.
Figure 1 clearly shows the relationship of each research question to the
conceptual framework that guides its findings. An X is used to show the
intersection of the research question with the corresponding conceptual
framework.
Figure 1
The Relationship o f Conceptual Frameworks to Research Questions
Conceptual
Framework
RQ 1
Policy
Design
R Q 2
Implementation
o f Policies
RQ3
Adequacy
of
Design
R Q 4
Change
Process
RQ5
Impact of
Policies &
Strategies
CF a - Intended Results X
CF b - School Policies &
Strategies
X X
CF c - State Policy X
CF d - New Context &
Traditional Policies &
Strategies
X
CF e - Standards-Based
Reform
X
CF f - Change Process X
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Collection Instruments
As the study is qualitative in nature, instruments were chosen to match the
type of study. The three instruments used include interviews, observations, and a
questionnaire. The benefit of the interview method is the researcher’s ability to
follow up on a respondent’s answers, to gain more information, and to clarify
vague statements (Gall, Borg & Borg, 1996). Interview guides following the
structure o f CFb aid the researcher in conducting the semi-structured interview.
The guide consists o f a series of structured questions that lead to the researcher’s
being able to probe more deeply, using open-ended questions to get additional
information. This approach was chosen to allow some flexibility, but still remain
structured enough to provide consistency for the cross-analysis o f the studies. A
teacher questionnaire was chosen to complement the interview format, as Robert
Yin (1989) recommends using both methods when doing a case study.
To ensure a complete picture and to provide for triangulation, the case-
study guide allows the researcher to gather evidence to support data collected
through interviews and questionnaires. Further, a Researcher Rating Form helps
the researcher to analyze and document supporting evidence relating to the
research questions. A description o f each o f the data collection instruments
follows, and a copy o f each is provided in the appendix.
Case-studv guide. The case-study guide (Appendix G) used the structure
of CFb to focus the questions of the formal interviews, the observations, and the
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
gathering o f data. Included in the guide are interviews, observations, and
quantitative data. The staff-interview guide is made up o f structured open-ended
questions, followed by probing questions designed to elicit greater detail and
insight into the design and description of promotion and retention programs
within the district. The following interviews constituted the case-study guide:
1. District-Ieader interview. A formal interview with one district leader,
preferably the superintendent or an assistant superintendent. The topic of the
district-leader interview focused on the design o f the policies and strategies and
consist o f (a) the process for policy and strategy development; (b) overview of the
design; (c) policy and strategy dissemination; (d) policy and strategy
implementation; and (e) policy and strategy funding. The district-leader interview
took place at the district office at the end of the workday to ensure few
interruptions and ready access to documentation.
2. Schoo 1-leader interview. The principal was interviewed to obtain
evidence o f policies and practices o f social promotion and retention as they are
practiced in the school. The interview was structured in the same way as the
district leader’s, but the questions focused on (a) identification o f at-risk students;
(b) intervention for at-risk students; (c) the decision to socially promote or retain a
student; (d) post-retention or social promotion; and (e) policy and strategy
monitoring: linking policy to practice. The principal interview took place on site,
in his office, to easily provide access to necessary evidentiary documents.
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Teacher-leader interviews. Two teacher leaders were interviewed
using the same interview structure as the school leader. The interview was
developed to discover the teachers’ perspectives on how the policies and
strategies are practiced at the site level. The interviews took place in the office of
the Title 1 Coordinator and in the staff room on the teachers’ prep periods. The
researcher took notes during these sessions.
4. Student interviews. Two socially promoted students, two retained
students, and two students who caught-up were interviewed using the Student
Interview Guide (Appendix H). The students were selected from the Title 1
Coordinator’s list of retained, socially promoted, and at-risk students. In order to
obtain parental permission in a timely manner, the students were promised a treat
for participating in the interview and were told that the first ones to return the
permission slip would be chosen. Twelve students were given the opportunity to
be interviewed, and seven returned the permission slip. Therefore, the researcher
interviewed three retained students instead of two. The questions were stated in
the permission slip to the parents and included: (a) what happens if you don’t
meet grade level standards by the end of the school year? (b) how do you get
“caught up”? (c) do you believe that you are improving? and (d) has your view of
school changed? Students were released from classes that did not include the core
instruction, and they took place in an enclosed office in the back of the library.
In addition to the interviews, observations and quantitative data were
required for the Case Study Guide.
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. Observations. The Case Study Guide included both formal and
informal observations. An observation guide containing the key components o f
Standards-Based Reform (CFe) served as the data collection instrument for
observations. The guide listed one component on each page with examples, and
left space for the researcher to list evidence and take notes. This allowed for a
descriptive and reflective analysis and response to the different components.
Observing for environmental information was a part o f all on-site-data-collection
days. Valuable data were gathered while the researcher informally observed and
interviewed district and school staff, and through the gathering o f district and
school policies, records, and publications. Informal observations also included
walking around campus, interacting with students at lunch, observing during
passing periods and release times. Formal observations included one after-school
intervention class, one 7^-8^ grade reading class, one 6th grade science class, one
sheltered ESL science class, one 6th grade reading class, and one self-contained
Alternative Learning Center class. Other formal observations included the
counseling office, the front office, and the library areas.
6. Quantitative Data. The researcher collected the following quantitative
data as part o f the Case Study Guide: (a) Academic Performance Index reports for
the school and district from 1999-2000; (b) SAT-9 scores for the school from
1997-2000; (c) drop-out rates at the school from 1997-2000; (d) social-promotion
rates from 1997-2000, and (e) retention rates at the school from 1997-2000.
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher Questionnaire. This instrument (Appendix I) allowed for the
anonymous response o f teachers to 100 questions that focused on the following
areas: (a) district policies and strategies; (b) school policies and strategies on
planning and design; (c) degree of implementation; (d) change and
implementation process; and (e) impact o f the district and school policies and
strategies. These five areas corresponded to the five research questions. The
questionnaire used a Likert scale format that gave participants a five-point rating
scale from 0-4. The questionnaire had a cover sheet explaining the anonymous
nature of the instrument, and it contained additional questions concerning gender,
ethnicity, years o f experience, courses currently being taught, and credentials
earned.
Researcher Rating Form. Based on the interviews, documents,
observations, questionnaire responses, and quantitative data, the Researcher
Rating Form aided the researcher in analyzing and documenting supporting
evidence relating to the research questions. The rating form corresponded to
Conceptual Frameworks A, C, D, and E.
Each framework component asked the researcher to rate the categories
“as intended,” and “as implemented.” The ratings consisted o f a five-point scale.
The rating form on Description of Intended Results-CFa asked the researcher to
rate each component from 1 (not considered important at all) to 5 (considered
very important). The ratings on Description o f State Policy-CFc, ranged from 1
(not aligned) to 5 (very aligned). The Comparison of New Context to Traditional
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Social Promotion and Retention Policies and Strategies-CFd consisted of ratings
ranging from 1 (very traditional) to 5 (very new context). Finally, Description of
Standards-Based Reform-CFe included ratings from 1 (not aligned) to 5
(aligned). The Researcher Rating Form was completed after the first round of data
collection, and then again after all data had been collected and analyzed.
Each instrument gave the researcher a means o f collecting the data on each
research question. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the research question
and the primary data collection instrument. The research questions appear in the
top left-to-right row and the data collection instruments are in the first vertical
column.
Figure 2
The Relationship o f Primary Data Collection Instrumentation
to Research Questions
Data Collection
Instruments
R. Q.#I
Policy
Design
R. Q. #2
Implementation
of
Policies
R. Q. #3
Adequacy
of
Design
R. Q. #4
Change Process
of Design
&
Implementation
R. Q. #5
Impact of
Policies &
Strategies
Case Study Guide
(including observations,
interviews, and quantitative
data)
X X X
Teacher Questionnaire X X X X
Researcher Rating Form X X
Data Collection
The data for the study were collected in January o f 2001 in two three-day
rounds o f data collection. The data were gathered through on-site visitations to the
district office and the school site, and through observations and interviews.
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The researcher spoke with the Assistant Superintendent o f the school
district in October 2000 to obtain permission for conducting the study. Because of
the heavy demands on her principals in the first trimester, she was unwilling to
take on the study. However, she kept the door open for the researcher to come in
during the second trimester. In January 2001, the researcher contacted the
principal at Southern Border School to request his school’s participation. The
researcher provided him with a summary of the study and a description of the
time commitment necessary. The principal responded to the request in the
affirmative, although he made it clear that the timing was not ideal because of
contract-negotiation problems.
The Assistant Superintendent was then contacted for final approval, and a
brief meeting with both parties was set to review the purpose o f the study, the
conceptual frameworks, the instruments, and the format o f the data collection.
Data collection then took place during the last two weeks o f January.
The first round o f data collection included the interview with the Assistant
Superintendent, the principal, and the Title 1 Coordinator at the school site. The
researcher taped all three interviews with the permission o f the interviewees as
well as taking notes on the interview guide. The tapes were later transcribed to
provide accurate evidence and quotations. Observation o f the front office and a
support classroom completed the first round of data collection. Following this
round, the researcher completed a preliminary data analysis to determine the areas
of further data collection and to discover any omissions in the data collected.
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The second round o f data collection was conducted solely at the school
site. The teacher interviews, the formal classroom observations, the student
interviews, and the informal interviews and observations took place at that time.
Each interview was structured in the following way: (a) the researcher introduced
herself and gave a brief explanation of the study; (b) the researcher asked
permission to take notes; (c) the researcher asked focused questions; and (d) the
interviewee was thanked for his/her time and promised anonymity.
Because of the close fit between data needed for the school’s CSRD grant
and the teacher questionnaire, and because o f contractual issues with teachers, the
principal felt it best to distribute the questionnaire during a staff-development day.
He explained the dual purpose of the questionnaire and legitimized their contract
time spent filling it out by explaining that the anonymous data would be useful in
looking at the progress o f the school’s current reform process. During a two-day
period, most teachers were scheduled for staff development. Those not included,
were special education teachers and teachers who had been at the site for less than
a school year. They were given the questionnaire in their mailbox, along with a
request to return it to the Title 1 Coordinator.
Data Analysis
The purpose o f this study was to describe the social promotion and
retention policies and strategies of one middle school in Southern California.
Further, the study was to determine the extent to which the policies and strategies
had been implemented, the adequacy of the design, and the impact o f the
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
strategies and practices. The Researcher Rating Form and the Case Study Guide
provided the basis for analysis, as they required supporting evidence for each of
the five research questions.
The first step of data analysis occurred after the first round o f data
collection with the initial researcher rating. The researcher completed an initial
rating to identify any gaps in the data collection. The second step o f data analysis
included the transcribing of interviews, the review o f district and site documents,
and the tallying o f teacher questionnaires.
District and site level interviews were taped, transcribed, and printed. As
the student interviews were already typed, they too were printed. Handwritten
observations and informal interviews were typed and printed.
The next step of analysis included the review o f the following district
documents: district handbook, Promotion/Retention Binder, Board Policy and
Administrative Regulations on promotion and retention, Board Goals, district
website data, and miscellaneous memos. The documents analyzed from the school
included: the School Accountability Report Card, end-of-the-year report for the
Comprehensive School Reform Grant, student handbook, school agenda, grade-
level standards, school statistics brochure, after-school programs brochure, daily
bulletins, and various other school level brochures and flyers. In order to analyze
the teacher questionnaire data, a spreadsheet was created by the researcher to tally
and average the responses.
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The final step o f analysis included the researcher returning through all o f
the printed data. The data was color coded to indicate supporting evidence for
each o f the research questions. The researcher rating form was filled in a final
time, and supporting evidence for each o f the rating was entered onto the form.
Evidence for the ratings drew from the interviews, documents, questionnaires, and
observations.
Following the analysis o f the individual case studies o f the fifteen
researchers, the accumulated data were cross-analyzed by a Ph.D. candidate at the
University o f Southern California. This analysis will better inform successful
promotion and retention policies and strategies across the states.
Summary
This chapter discussed the research methods used in this study, including
descriptions o f the research design, the sample and population, the instruments,
the procedures, and the methodology. The case study involved five research
questions that used the developed conceptual frameworks and instruments to
guide the data collection. The instruments included a teacher questionnaire, a
Researcher Rating Form, and a Case Study Guide. Procedures included obtaining
permission from the district and site administrator, conducting interviews and
observations, and collecting supporting data and completed questionnaires. The
data were then analyzed and reported in the form of a case study, and the analysis
and findings are presented in Chapter Four.
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA AND FINDINGS
This chapter presents and analyzes the data collected in the study. The
data includes teacher questionnaires, observations, interviews, researcher ratings,
and quantitative data.
The five research questions to be answered by this study look at the
district’s and school’s new-context social promotion and retention policies and
practices. The questions are concerned with the (a) design, (b) practice,
(c) adequacy, (d) change process, and (e) impact o f the policies, strategies, and
programs in the district and school. The data is organized and presented topically
using the five research questions as focal points.
Research Question One: Policies and Strategies Design
Framework for Research Question One
The first research question asks, “W hat is the design of the district and
school policies and strategies to address social promotion and retention?” The
interview with the Assistant Superintendent o f Educational Services (also referred
to as the district administrator) and the site principal, along with a review of
relevant documents provided the primary data for describing the design o f the
district and school policies and strategies. The policy was designed at the district
level, and schools are required to follow the policy as developed; therefore, the
research question focuses on the district design.
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The interview guide uses the first half o f Conceptual Framework B to
guide the discovery, and provides the framework used for reporting the case
study. This framework includes the following five areas: (a) the process for policy
and strategy development, (b) overview of the design, (c) policy and strategy
dissemination, (d) policy and strategy implementation, and (e) policy and strategy
funding. Additionally, responses from the Teacher Questionnaire that focus on the
design of strategies and programs to address social promotion and retention will
be included in this question.
The Process for Policy and Strategy Development
Historical perspective. Over the years, Sunny Union School District
initiated and maintained a promotion and retention policy based on the philosophy
taken in the district. Over the years, several research committees concluded
consistent findings on the effects of retention. Both the literature and their own
research revealed few positive effects o f retention.
Further, the district had an Educational Support Director who was strongly
opposed to retention due to the lack of research supporting the practice. Because
of the philosophy against retention, the district had a policy that essentially
maintained that students would not be retained. Instead, they attempted to provide
alternative programs for those students. On the occasion when the district did
support retention, it was usually at the kindergarten or first-grade level. The
research they found on retention in the early grades showed that, in some cases,
retention had mixed results and had a possibility o f improving student
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
achievement. Yet, even at the younger ages, the philosophy o f the district was still
to discourage retention. Any student retention that took place past the early grades
was primarily at parent request.
The district administrator recounted a vivid example o f the negative
effects o f retention. She visited a D.A.R.E. graduation and out o f the whole 6th
grade class at the site, the only student who did not graduate from the D.A.R.E.
program was a student who had been retained.
The goals o f the process. When asked why the district chose to revise their
promotion and retention policy, the direct response was simply because they “had
to.” The district’s goal, then, was to follow the intent of the legislation, while
keeping the child’s best interest and valid research in mind.
When the new legislation forbidding social promotion passed, the district
administrator was given the task of revising the policy to meet the new legislation.
This was no easy job, as at face value, the new policy seemed to go against the
philosophy of the district. The district administrator recounts that, “My thinking
was I needed to follow the legislation and the intent of the legislation, but the
utmost in my mind was to create a policy that was student-centered.”
As the district was also in the midst o f standards-based reform, an
additional goal was to integrate the new promotion and retention policy into the
reform already taking place. It seemed the perfect time to identify standards-based
assessment criteria for pupil promotion and retention.
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Other than the preceding goals o f remaining true to the district philosophy
discouraging retention, following legislative intent, and incorporating standards
into the policy, the end results were not clearly articulated in the development of
the policy. Yet, throughout the design, early interventions to prevent retention and
address student deficiencies were given top priority. The district administrator,
looking back on the process, says that although the impetus o f the process came
primarily from a state mandate, the goal quickly developed into improving student
achievement by looking at each child as an individual. A second goal became
developing greater parental involvement, as they are a critical support for
student’s success.
Table 1 indicates teacher ratings on what they believe were the intended
goals o f the district and school in the design o f the policies and strategies for
addressing retention and social promotion. The questionnaire presents ten
questions directed at policy and strategy goals on a 5-point scale with four
indicating strongest agreement. Teachers lacked a strong agreement on all of the
district goals. However, teachers felt somewhat stronger agreement on the goals
of policies and strategies at the school. O f all the goals, teachers were in strongest
agreement that the school’s policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention have the goal o f increasing student performance. Teachers indicated the
weakest agreement that the district’s policies and strategies have the goal of
reducing the dropout rate.
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1
Goals o f the Design o f District Policies and Strategies:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Policy and Strategy Goals n* Average
The district’s policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention have the goal o f reducing the rate o f retention.
41 2.95
The district’s policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention have the goal o f reducing social promotion.
40 2.65
The district’s policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention have the goal o f reducing dropout rates.
36 2.44
The district’s policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention have the goal o f increasing student performance.
41 2.93
The district’s policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention have the goal o f increasing student motivation.
38 2.61
The school’s policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention have the goal o f reducing the rate o f retention.
40 3.13
The school’s policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention have the goal o f reducing social promotion.
39 2.97
The school’s policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention have the goal o f reducing the dropout rate.
38 2.92
The school’s policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention have the goal o f increasing student performance.
40 3.30
The school’s policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention have the goal o f increasing student motivation.
40 2.88
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don't know.
I=disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat. 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
“ Number of teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don't know responses
were omitted.
Community and teacher involvement. To begin work on developing the
new promotion and retention policy, the district administrator decided on a
committee approach. She knew it was critical to have key people on the
committee. To ensure that sound research and legislative intent were carefully
considered in the policy, she created a committee that included approximately 30
people. They met one to three times a week for over eight months. The members
included community people, members from the Superintendent’s Citizen
Advisory Committee, administrators who were grounded in the research on
promotion and retention, teachers from the primary and middle schools,
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
counselors, and representatives from the teachers’ organization. Everyone on the
committee was required to read research on retention to provide a solid
foundation for discussion and decision-making.
The committee representatives constituted the only involvement of the
community and teachers in the development o f the new policy. From response to
the Teacher Questionnaire (Table 2) it is apparent from the low scores on
questions regarding input on the design, that the teachers as a whole did not
perceive they had a great deal o f input into the policy. Nor did the teacher
response indicate the community was supportive o f the policy, which might
indicate a lack o f community involvement. Table 2 depicts the average scores
teachers gave in both areas.
Table 2
Teacher and Community Input on the Design o f District Policies and Strategies:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Input on the Design n" Average
Teacher participation throughout the design process was high. 36 2.53
The design of the program was far-reaching and effective in stimulating teacher
interest and engagement.
35 1.91
Community support for the policies and strategies is strong. 25 1.80
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don't know.
I=disaeree stronelv. 2=disaeree somewhat- 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree stronelv).
“ Number of teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
The committee went step by step through the legislation to determine and
decide on the necessary changes to their current policy. They acquired a copy of
the California School Boards Association draft policy and policies o f districts that
were in the forefront o f the promotion/retention movement. Long Beach’s policy
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
was used as a guide, but it did not follow all of the criteria of the legislation
because its policy was in effect before the legislation was established.
The committee met over an eight-month period. They worked through the
summer and the fall of 1999 to write the new policy. In areas o f disagreement, the
committee debated until they came to consensus on what they wanted to include
and how they wanted to word the policy.
Underlying beliefs. One o f the key debates in the design of the policy
focused on the issue o f criteria for promotion in the first year o f implementation.
The teachers on the committee felt the standards should be set high the first year.
The district administrator recounts, “We debated about transitioning into a policy
and having a three-year phase in. If we would have set the criteria too high the
first year, we would have been retaining hundreds and hundreds o f kids.”
Keeping the student’s best interest in mind, the Assistant Superintendent
felt it was only fair that students receive the time necessary for interventions to
improve achievement. Setting the bar too high the first year could also have
become a facilities nightmare. Table 3 depicts teacher ratings on what they
perceived were the underlying beliefs o f the district and school in promotion and
retention policy. Response indicated a somewhat neutral position that the district
believes all students could reach high standards. This could be due to the lower
criteria used the first year o f implementation, which opposed teacher input
suggesting standards be set higher. Strong agreement was noted in the belief that
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the district and schools hold teachers accountable for student achievement. The
beliefs at the school level revealed stronger agreement than the district level.
Table 3
Underlying Beliefs o f the Design of District and School Policies and Strategies:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Beliefs n* Average
The district believes that all students can meet high standards. 37 2.86
The district believes that the entire learning community is responsible
for helping students succeed.
39 2.72
The district believes the school site is accountable for student
achievement.
42 3.60
The school believes that all students can meet high standards. 41 3.02
The school believes that the entire learning community is responsible
for helping students to succeed.
42 3.10
The school holds teachers accountable for student achievement. 41 3.32
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don't know.
1 - disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat. 3=agree somewhat and 4 = agree strongly).
umber o f teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
The committee discussed the positives and negatives o f different
strategies. Eventually the committee came up with a new promotion and retention
policy approved by the board in the fall of 1999.
Overview of the Design
Policies. The policies and strategies included in the design are found in the
board policy and administrative regulations on Promotion, Acceleration, and
Retention. The Assistant Superintendent explained that changing the board policy
was the simpler task compared to the revisions to the administrative regulations
and corresponding criteria for retention and promotion. The administrative
regulations were drastically changed to specifically indicate the design and
process o f carrying out the new policy.
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Vision o f the policy. The vision o f the policy is very clear and focused on
seeing all students reach grade-level standards. In order to facilitate this vision,
the committee eventually came to consensus on a multi-year implementation plan.
The introduction to the plan stated, “Each year, as district teachers further aligned
the instructional program to state standards, criteria for retention would be
increased.” The intent o f the promotion/retention criteria was to provide guidance
to teachers and site promotion/retention committees in determining student
placement.
The school's vision statement also clearly communicates similar goals for
every student at the end o f eighth grade. It states, “Students will have reached or
surpassed state and district academic content standards.” Table 4 that indicates the
teachers only somewhat agree that the district and the school share the same
vision for social promotion and retention in spite o f similar vision statements.
Table 4
Vision of the Design of District Policies and Strategies:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Vision n1 Average
The district and this school share the same vision for social promotion
and retention.
37 2.76
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disagree stronelv. 2=disaeree somewhat. 3=aeree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
•Number of teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Inclusion o f standards. Included in both the district and the school’s vision
is the mention o f standards. The district has made an extensive investment in
alignment to California State Content Standards in both resources and training.
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The district also adopted and purchased new texts that are specifically aligned to
the standards. The district hired Doug Reeves to present a district-wide in-service
on “Making Standards Work” for all teachers. The Education Services division o f
the district office has provided extensive training and support in standards-based
instruction and alignment for all grades and subjects with California Content
Standards.
In addition to district commitment in resources and training, the board
policy states, “Students shall progress through the grade levels by demonstrating
academic growth through meeting grade-level standards o f expected student
achievement in language arts and math.” As indicated by teacher response to
statements on standards inclusion in Table 5, standards are clearly understood to
be an expectation for instruction.
Table 5
Inclusion o f Standards in the Design of District Policies and Strategies:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Standards Inclusion n* Average
The district expects standard-based teaching. 41 3.59
The school expects teachers to use standards-based teaching. 42 3.52
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
I=disaeree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat. 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree stronelv).
“ Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don't know responses
were omitted.
Beliefs. The district administrator pointed out that the district’s beliefs
about the type o f curriculum and instruction to be used by the district are evident
in the board policy, which states:
The district is dedicated to providing a curricular program
and learning environment that will encourage the optimum
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
growth of each student. The Governing Board expects
students to progress through each grade within one school
year. Instruction should accommodate the various learning
styles, developmental stages, and linguistic development of
individual students.
Also within the policy, the district’s belief that retention is not a sound practice
remains clear. The policy specifies the following:
The district strongly supports alternative to retention for
meeting the individual needs of students. Students shall be
identified as being at risk of retention based on multiple
assessment results, as well as social, emotional, physical,
linguistic, and educational factors, and teacher
recommendation. When a student is identified as being at
risk o f retention or is recommended for retention, the site
shall provide additional opportunities for remedial
instruction to assist the student in overcoming his/her
academic deficiencies. Student support services may be
available, as appropriate, to the student’s needs.
The district administrator said that the need for multiple criteria in
identifying students at risk is a strong belief held by the district. Therefore, in the
administrative regulations, it maintains that “students shall be identified as at risk
o f retention on the review and analysis of the following multiple criteria:
(a) district-wide assessments in math, reading, and writing; (b) grades in math,
reading, writing, and English using district-approved curriculum and tests; and
(c) state testing and reporting.” Moreover, the regulations go on to include other
criteria for consideration, including “progress being made toward reaching
standards, teacher recommendation, effort, attendance, consideration of
extenuating circumstances, and other relevant data.” The multiple criteria clearly
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
indicate the belief that the whole child is considered when making a retention
decision.
Throughout the forms developed by the district for the policies and
strategies, the belief that all parties are responsible for the student’s learning is
clear. On the district-developed Individual Remediation Plan, it states, “The IRP
is developed to assist your student and requires the cooperation of teachers,
students, and parents.”
State statutory elements and unique elements in the policy. The committee
made every attempt to include all of the state statutory elements in their policy.
The use of multiple measures, early identification and intervention, and clear
criteria for promotion and retention are just a few of the statutory elements the
committee successfully included in the policy. The administrative regulations
articulate the multiple criteria. As indicated by the first two responses on statutory
elements, Table 6 shows teachers agree that both the district and school use
multiple criteria to assess student performance.
Yet, based on the fact that eighteen teachers responded with a 0 or “don’t
know” to the statement “the district and school policies are aligned with the state
policies for promotion and retention,” teachers may not be familiar with the state
policy. Teachers showed slightly stronger agreement in the school’s alignment to
state elements than to the districts alignment. Table 6 depicts the teachers
understanding o f other state statutory requirements including identification, early
intervention, clear criteria, and multiple measures.
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6
State Statutory Elements in the Design o f District Policies and Strategies:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
State Statutory Elements n* Average
The district’s policies and strategies call for the use o f multiple measures to
assess student performance.
40 3.30
The school’s policies and strategies call for the use o f multiple measures to
assess student performance.
41 3.41
The district and school policies are aligned with the state policies for promotion
and retention. In addition, all strategies and procedures are legal.
24 3.25
The district has a plan to identify acceptable levels o f student performance. 41 2.73
The district has a plan to identify students that are not performing at acceptable
levels.
41 3.00
The district has a plan to implement early interventions for students performing
below acceptable levels.
36 2.75
The school uses clear criteria for identifying acceptable levels o f student
performance.
41 2.95
The school has implemented early interventions for students performing below
acceptable levels.
42 2.81
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don't know.
1 =disaeree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat 3=aeree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
*Number of teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don't know responses
were omitted.
The new policy included one element not required by the state statutes.
This included the retention possibility between 1st and 2n d grade. The addition was
due to the district belief that if retention were to occur, it should happen at the
youngest age possible, to provide any benefit to the child.
Another unique element o f Sunny Union District’s policy is this statement:
As a general rule, no student shall be retained more than one time
during his or her kindergarten through eighth grade schooling.
Individual consideration may be made by the committee regarding
additional retention. Appropriate interventions will continue to be
available once a student is retained. If the student continues to be
unsuccessful, alternative programs may be explored.
This additional element is backed by the research that shows a second retention
almost ensures that a student will drop out, and the intent is to look out for the
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
student’s best interest. Unfortunately, this element may unintentionally lower
expectations for students. When interviewed, a socially promoted student who
was also previously retained, was asked if he worried about being retained. His
response was, “I don’t worry about being retained because I already was, and they
can’t retain me again.” In looking at his achievement, teachers note he continued
to perform far below standard.
Criteria for promotion and retention. Criteria for promotion in the
administrative regulations are based on multiple assessments that are aligned to
the standards. Each grade level has specified criteria for identifying students as
“Below Basic” or “Possible Retention.” These categories are synonymous to “at-
risk of retention” and “retention candidate” respectively, and used
interchangeably in district documentation. The policy does not exclude any group
of students, but does provide separate criteria for English Learners and Special
Education students.
The 2000-2001 school year, being the second year o f implementation, has
slightly higher criteria for retention than the preceding year. For example, the
students were not considered for retention the first year unless their SAT-9 scores
fell below the 10th percentile. That score was raised to the 19th percentile the
second year. The retention decision does not rest solely on one test score though.
The district regulations specify that “the majority o f student’s reading assessments
and scored standardized assignments and tests must fall into the category in order
to be considered for retention.”
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 3 shows the district criteria of 4th -8 th grade students for the second
year of implementation. The left column lists the specific criteria, and the second
and third columns provide measurable data for the placement in each category.
The criteria are considered for all regular education students.
Figure 3
At Risk and Consideration for Retention Criteria
For Regular Education - Grades 6-8 Middle School
Criteria Retention Category Below Basic
Category
Reading SAT-9 1-19 NP 20-24 NP
School Diagnostic Reading
Assessment (SDRA) or John’s
I.R.I
2 grade levels below I grade level below
Language SAT-9 1-19 NP 20-24 NP
District Writing Assessment 3-4 pts (out o f 12) 5 pts (out o f 12)
Language arts skills based on
standards-based assignments &
tests
2 grade levels below 1 grade level below
Math SAT-9 1-19 NP 20-24 NP
District Math Test 0-6 pts (out o f 32) 7-8 pts (out o f 32)
Math skills based on scored
standards-based assignments
and tests
Two grade levels below One grade level below
In addition to the preceding criteria, the district suggests the following areas be
considered when making the decision to retain a student: (a) parent input;
(b) progress toward reaching proficiency; (c) teacher recommendation; (d) effort;
(e) attendance; (f) extenuating circumstances; and (g) other relevant data.
The criteria for English Language Learners hold students to high standards
while acknowledging the special conditions in which these students are placed.
The district guidelines on ELL students explain “With the passage o f Proposition
227, state law now allows programs for English Language Learners to be
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
designed primarily to teach them English first and academic content second.”
Because o f the reality that academic content is ofien taught second, the district
states, “It is clearly inappropriate to retain English Language Learners who have
failed to meet academic standards in areas in which they have been provided only
limited instruction.” Clearly defining the need for differing criteria, the district
established the following ELL guidelines. Figure 4 includes the additional
assessments and considerations taken for ELL students.
Figure 4
At Risk and Consideration for Retention Criteria
For English Learners
Criteria Below Basic Possible Retention
New to U.S. schools Teacher notifies parent Do not consider unless
requested by parent
Years in U.S. schools 2 + years 2 + years
Years since transition to ail English 1-2 years 2+ years
SAT-9
Reading
Math
20-24 NP
20-24 NP
1-19 NP
1-19 NP
Language 20-24 NP 1-19 NP
Reading Level
John’s IRI-English 1 year below grade level 2 years below grade level
Graded Class Work
Reading/Writing/Math Below standard Far below standard
LAS-Oral English Between 5-10 pts of
growth
Less than 5 pts of growth
LAS-Reading/Writing English
2 1
District Writing Assessment I (on four point rubric) I (on four point rubric)
ELD Standards “N /D /F’ on report card “N /D /F’ on report card
Listening/Speaking/Reading/W riting Little progress No progress
SST Pre-Referral/lnterventions Documented
Notify parents that child should attend summer school March/June
Other criteria to consider when retaining an ELL student are listed in the
guidelines. These criteria include: (a) parent input; (b) progress toward reaching
academic proficiency; (c) teacher recommendation; (d) effort; (e) attendance;
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(f) transitioning from Bilingual Spanish to Sheltered English Immersion (SEI),
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE), or Mainstream;
(g) prior schooling; (h) current age; (i) extenuating circumstances; and (j) other
relevant data.
The criteria for promotion and retention o f Special Education students are
based primarily on the student’s progress toward the goals and objectives
contained in his/her Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The policy on special
education students also requires that progress be monitored on a regular basis.
The district looks at the development o f criteria as a process. Each year, it
uses data on student progress to review the criteria standards. The coordinator of
curriculum completed a draft o f more specific criteria with accompanying
performance standards that represented a closer match to standards-based
reporting. The new layout for retention criteria provided five columns with
corresponding assessment categories. The columns were labeled, (a) possible
retention, (b) below basic/below standard, (c) basic/approaching standard,
(d) proficient at standard, and (e) advanced proficient. Each year the district hopes
to achieve better alignment between standards and assessments. They also hope to
develop performance standards for all grades and subjects.
Timeline. The district has a specific timeline that schools must follow in
the identification o f students at risk of retention, and the notification o f parents.
Figure 5 is the 2000-2001 schedule that schools were given by the district to
follow in identification and notification.
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 5
District Promotion and Retention Timeline
October/November Following district criteria, determine students considered for retention
and below basic and implement intervention.
October 30-
November 3
Schedule conferences.
November 9 Send names of students considered for retention to Program Evaluation
Office.
November 9-21 Elementary parent conferences (refer to guidelines).
November 9-
December 6
Middle school parent conferences (refer to guidelines).
February 26-28 Update student list o f retention candidates.
March 2 Send updated list o f retention candidates to Program Evaluation. Along
with report cards, send parent letters to retention candidates
encouraging summer school (attach copy o f Individual Remediation
Plan).
April 30-May 3 Assessments for retention candidates: Grades K-3 reading, Grades 4-8
reading, writing, math.
May 3-8 Score assessments o f retention candidates, update Student Achievement
Profile, collect student samples, prepare retention folder for Site
Retention Committee. If being considered, discuss with parents their
position on retention.
May 9-11 Site retention committees meet.
May 11 Update list of retention candidates and send update to Program
Evaluation Office. Letters sent to parents o f retention candidates;
include summer school registration if not already received.
May 14-24 Appeal forms returned to schools.
May 24 Send appeal letters to Educational Services.
May 29-31 District Appeal Committee meets.
June Send to Program evaluation the list o f kindergarten students who will be
retained. Place signed parent agreement form in the cum folder.
July 2-27 Summer School.
July 25-27 Summer School assessments conducted.
July 27 Student retention folders, including summer school assessment for
retained student sent to Educational Services.
July 30 -
August 10
District committee reviews student progress.
Site Retention and Promotion Committee. The district guidelines call for
each school site to have a Site Retention Committee to make final determinations
on retention. The committee is made up of at least two teachers at the middle
school and at the elementary school. The preference is that the second teacher at
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the elementary level be from the same grade level. The principal and other
support staff members who assist the child are also members o f the committee.
The committees meet in May to make final determinations. The process of
the meeting is outlined in the district guidelines, and includes: (a) review district
policy and regulations; (b) review student assessment data and compare to
retention guidelines; (c) review report cards, student work, and other pertinent
data; (d) discuss information provided on the Student Achievement Profile to
determine if there are reasons not to retain or to support retention; (e) arrive at a
consensus; (f) complete the last section o f Student Achievement Profile, labeled
“Recommendation of Site Promotion/Retention Committee;” (g) prepare the
parent letter to be sent home in May with teacher’s signature; and (h) return the
promotion/retention folder to the principal.
The district administrator states that,
The teacher has the final say on the retention or promotion
decision, but there is a site committee. It takes all the information
from previous grades and assessments, and looks at the student’s
progress. The students have to have multiple areas in which they
are deficient. The committee then makes the decision after the
teacher presents the information.
The parent does not attend this meeting, but is informed of the final decision in
early May. The intent o f a committee is to make certain that a decision to retain is
based on all the available data and input from a variety of people and sources.
This prevents a subjective retention decision from one teacher.
Exclusions. Key to a retention decision is whether parents have been
notified in November that their child is a candidate for retention. If the parent is
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
not notified by this time, the district will not consider retention. If a child enters
the district in December despite poor assessment scores, retention is not an option.
Ideally, sites will identify the student as at-risk and provide him/her with
interventions and monitor him/her the following year for progress.
Notification. If the student is in the “considered for retention” category,
the parent must be notified during parent conferences in November and an
Individualized Remediation Plan (IRP) is then completed. The IRP is intended to
be designed and signed by the student, parent, and teacher. The intent for students
who fall into the “at risk for retention” category is that the same process occurs as
those in the “retention candidate” category. Yet, for the student at risk o f
retention, the guidelines allow for the Individualized Remediation Plan to be
completed by the school and sent home for the parent’s signature without a face-
to-face meeting. Parents are notified on each report card if their child is at risk of
retention, and parents are encouraged to take part in their child’s education
through district-developed notification letters in November and again in March.
Interventions. The district guidelines call for teachers to fill out a district-
created Student Achievement Profile for all students identified in the retention
category. The profile documents progress in assessments and any interventions
the student is attending, along with parent contact, attendance information,
teacher comments, and teacher recommendations regarding retention.
The interventions specifically mentioned in the policy include, but are not
limited to “before and after-school programs, tutorial programs, alternative
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
learning programs, Saturday school, and summer school programs, as well as
during the regular school day.” The policy does add, “The intervention will not
replace core instruction.”
The Individual Remediation Plan indicates the type of intervention
necessary for the students. Figure 6 is a list o f the interventions listed on the
district form that fall under the “School Plan” for Grades 4 -8. Schools are to
check off the intervention required or indicate another type of intervention for the
student.
Figure 6
School Plan Options for
Students Below Standard in Language Arts and Math
Grade level standards reviewed
with parents and student
Homework assistance after
school
Reviewed Academic Criteria for
Retention
Reading lab as an elective
(middle school)
Frequent behavior/academic
progress report or conference
Modified assignments, if
applicable
Before school tutoring in Special incentives
After school tutoring in Counseling/Student Support
Center
During school tutoring in Saturday School
Other Peer mediation
The schools are required to follow the district policy and regulations as
they are designed. Although the criteria and timeline established by the district are
to be followed closely, schools determine the specific interventions their students
require. The schools also develop the curriculum and instruction for the
intervention programs.
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Policy and Strategy Dissemination
Following the school board’s adoption of the new policy, the
Superintendent sent a letter home to all parents explaining the new policy. The
district handbook was also changed to include a section on “The Identification o f
Students Not Meeting State Proficiency Standards.”
The district administrator commented that, “When the policy just went
into effect, we did a great deal to get the word out. I met with the city council, the
chamber o f commerce, and the Citizens Advisory Council to the Superintendent.”
The media were called and asked to run a segment on the new policy, and a
presentation was given at a publicized board meeting.
Every school was given a copy o f the Retention/Promotion Binder. Each
binder included the following: (a) the district’s multi-year implementation plan;
(b) the Board Policy and Administrative Regulations on Promotion, Acceleration,
and Retention; (c) the timeline; (d) the process for November identification of
possible retention candidates; (e) academic criteria for retention and below basic
categories, broken down by grade level, English Learners, and Special Education
students; (f) Parent/teacher conference guidelines and forms; (g) Individual
Remediation Plans for students being considered for retention and for students
below standard in Reading/Language Arts/Math; (h) Student Achievement
Profiles for candidates considered for retention, broken down by grade, regular
education, and English Learners; (i) copies of all notification letters to parents;
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(j) April/May site retention procedures; (k) appeal forms; and (1) summer school
required documentation.
These binders were given to a site leadership team member who was in
serviced on the contents, and charged to familiarize his/her respective staff with
the information. Teachers were then in-serviced by their colleague on how to
conduct parent conferences, the guidelines, and the criteria for promotion. Every
teacher received a copy of his/her grade-level criteria for promotion, and the
district guidelines. Administrators were asked to review the procedures and
timelines on retention for their staff in April. The district provided each
administrator with a “Staff Meeting Discussion Guide” and important timelines
and guidelines to discuss.
The dissemination appeared to be fairly thorough, as noted by teacher’s
agreement to questions on teacher awareness in Table 7. The small discrepancy in
awareness between district and school policies may be because some teachers
were unaware that the school criteria, timelines, and strategies were actually the
same as the districts.
Table 7
Awareness o f the District/School Design o f Promotion and Retention Policies and
Strategies: Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Teacher Awareness n* Average
I am aware o f the district’s policies and strategies for social promotion
and retention.
40 3.15
I am aware o f the school’s policies and strategies for social promotion
and retention.
41 3.37
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
1 - disagree stronelv. 2=disagree somewhat 3=agree somewhat and 4 = agree strongly).
*Number of teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dissemination o f the school’s expectations for student achievement begins
at Open House each October. The teachers give a copy o f “The California Content
Standards” to the parents for their child’s grade. They go over the standards and
explain the promotion criteria to the parents. Because early identification and
notification are required for at-risk students, parents are notified of their child’s
progress within the first few months o f school.
The Principal added that the policy on promotion and retention has
become the culture o f the school and the students know what is expected o f them.
He feels the students themselves are the primary source o f disseminating the new
criteria for retention/promotion to parents.
Policy and Strategy Implementation
The promotion and retention policy was fully implemented the first year
(1999-2000), but the criteria for promotion are being phased in over a three-year
period. After discussion, the committee came to consensus on this three-year plan
that would phase in higher criteria for students to meet over the three-year period.
The greater span o f time would allow those students who were identified at risk
the first year appropriate time to receive interventions.
The district administrator was also tasked with overseeing the
implementation o f the policy at the district level. She remains the point person for
collecting the retention data, and problem-solving any special cases. Continued
responsibilities in implementing the policy include handling the appeal process
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and the process o f determining retention or promotion after students attend
summer school.
Because many of the teachers are unavailable during the summer, the
district administrator receives all the updated student retention folders from the
summer school teachers. She states that
By law, we have to reassess students after summer school. We
have a whole process to reassess after summer school and have
teachers who will volunteer. I hire a team o f teachers and they help
me go through all o f the folders on these students and evaluate
whether they should be promoted.
This team uses additional information such as summer school assessment, results
o f classroom assignments, effort, attendance, teacher recommendation, and
sample work to reassess the Site Promotion/Retention Committee’s May
recommendation. While the district administrator was tasked with the district
implementation, the principals and leadership teams at each site were responsible
for the implementation of the policies and strategies at the site level.
Influences affecting implementation. Many parents and students are by
passing the retention list because o f differing policies in neighboring districts, and
lack o f communication between districts. Many o f the neighboring elementary
districts have not yet developed policies, or have less stringent criteria. Sunny
Union School District is finding that many of their retained students are being
enrolled as promoted students in other districts.
Further, communication between the elementary district and the high
school district needs to be improved. The Sunny Union School District provides
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the high school district with the list o f 8th grade retainees. In turn, the high school
district gives each high school a list of only those retained students who are
coming from their middle school feeder. If the retainee enrolls at one o f the other
high schools in the district, the child will not appear on their retainee list.
The principal also spoke o f the communication problem between the high
school and the middle school as being a concern in the implementation o f the
policy at the school. Unknown to the middle school, the high school created a
program for 8th grade students who had been retained. The principal explains the
effect it had on students and staff:
We’re trying to work more with the high school. The high school
created a program that is pre-9th grade. We are supposed to tell
them what kids are being retained and they can either stay here or
go into their program. But the kids want to be in high school. The
condition is they need to go to this class and pass certain criterion
before they are moved into the 9th grade. I didn’t know about this
program and we had four 8th grade kids who we retained here. All
o f a sudden, three kids disappeared and we didn’t know where they
were. This created a small problem because the perception by
teachers and other students was that the kid moved on in spite o f
not meeting standards.
The coming year, teachers and the school will be better informed about the
programs offered to retained 8th graders at the high school level.
Roadblocks to implementation. Union negotiations have significantly
impacted the implementation o f interventions at the sites. In the 2000-2001 school
year, teachers called for all union members to work to the contract and quit any
extra duties. Unfortunately, these duties often included the formal and informal
interventions occurring at the sites. Whether it was the teacher who voluntarily
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stayed to help a student, or the teacher who taught the after-school tutorial class,
all were encouraged to stop until a contract had been settled.
The principal mentions that typically he does not have any problems with
teachers volunteering to fill the intervention teaching positions because o f “their
commitment to these kids, and wanting to see them succeed.” But he also
acknowledged that,
Right now we are in a lull because o f negotiations, but they [the
teachers] are chomping at the bit more than anyone. We’ve lost
more than 3-4 months o f good quality, cohesive program, not the
quality of what is in the classroom, but that after-school continuity.
They are realizing the void.
Until negotiations are settled, the intervention programs will suffer. The Title 1
Coordinator at the school site mentioned that a few teachers still hold after-school
tutorials for students, but try to do so without the knowledge of other teachers.
The district administrator identified several other roadblocks to the
implementation of the policy. Although broad categories o f interventions for at-
risk students were identified in the policy (summer school, before-and after
school programs, tutorial programs, alternative learning programs), she says,
“Interventions are an area we still need to work on for students who were
retained.” Because the practice o f the district did not include retention, they
struggle with providing students a second year that is qualitatively different from
the year they failed. Moreover, facilities for alternative programs are problematic.
No room exists at many o f the schools to provide for smaller class sizes or special
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
programs, nor do the small number of retained students at each site allow for a
separate class.
The school feels that it has handled the implementation o f interventions
quite well, yet also admits they need work in providing retained students with
more support. The school attempts to give the student a different teacher, but that
doesn’t always happen. It is an area they hope to work on during the upcoming
year.
The district administrator also mentioned consistency in how teachers
grade on report cards as an additional roadblock to implementation. Although
multiple measures are used for identification, teacher grading is still somewhat
subjective. As the district continues to align itself to standards-based instruction,
and in-services its teachers on assessment, the hope is that greater consistency
will result.
Policy and Strategy Funding
Funding of interventions. Much of the funding for interventions and
programs in the district comes from the companion bill, AB 1639, mandating
summer school. For the interventions, the district uses Proficiency Funds and K-4
Reading Initiative money. The district administrator hopes for mandated cost
money to come through. She also believes that the new money Governor Davis
set aside for math and algebra will help subsidize the interventions being offered
in the coming year.
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The district administrator was very clear in stating that the funding is not
adequate, however. She said, “We need to have nine at-risk children in order to
pay for a teacher for interventions. One o f the problems is that you don’t get the
money up front. We pay for the teacher up front, but we don’t get the money until
the following year.”
In addition to the summer school funding, Southern Border Middle School
partially funds the intervention programs with the CSRD grant money, after
school programs funding, and safe and drug free money. The district
administrator, “Many o f the schools are co-funding their interventions from their
own funding. Some use one or a combination o f Title 1 funding or general funds.”
Effect of funding issues on curriculum and instruction. When asked how
the funding issues affected curricular and instructional decisions, the district
administrator was positive in saying that without any money, there would be no
interventions. But she again made it clear that “The money is not adequate for
funding teachers at an hourly rate to work with small groups. The funding also
involves an exorbitant amount of logging. It takes a lot of secretarial and
accounting time and is very paper intensive.”
Summary of Research Question One Data
The data from research question one shows that the district used a
committee to design the policies and strategies on social promotion and retention.
The committee’s design for the new policy included the state statutory elements
and incorporated the district’s belief in standards-based reform. The policy was
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
disseminated to schools, parents, students, and the community through multiple
channels. The policy was implemented the first year, but higher criteria for
promotion are being phased in over a three-year period. The district design is
expected to be implemented at all schools in the district, and funded through a
combination o f district and school monies.
The design o f the policies and strategies is thorough and well thought out.
The district design is specific and includes clear multiple assessment criteria,
timelines, notifications, monitoring documents, and committee requirements for
making final retention decisions. The design also enhances the standards-based
reform already occurring within the district. This is done through the use of
standards-based assessments for retention criteria, and the continued alignment of
assignments and instruction to standards.
The design o f the policy avoided implementation problems through the
use o f a multi-year implementation plan. Although teachers may have felt the
criteria for retention was too low the first year, phasing in higher criteria provided
for three important conditions. First, students at risk o f retention would be given
the time to receive interventions before retention. Second, the teachers would
have more time to align their instructional program to state standards, thus
making standards-based assessments valid criteria for retention decisions. And
finally, phasing in higher criteria avoided the dilemma other districts were facing
in the first year o f implementation. With high criteria, these districts were unable
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to handle the number o f retained students and were forced to socially promote
them in spite of their not meeting criteria.
The design process was top-down and did not engage teachers and the
community. Although the district was thorough in its dissemination o f the new
policy, teachers did not feel involved in the design. The committee representatives
constituted the only involvement of teachers and the community in the process.
Based on teacher responses to the questionnaire and interviews, teachers as a
whole, did not feel that they had a great deal o f input in the design o f the policies
and strategies.
Research Question Two: Policies and Strategies Design in Practice
Framework for Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “To what extent have the social
promotion and retention policies and strategies actually been implemented?” Two
sub-questions included, “What does the practice look like, and how does it
work?” and, “To what extent does it actually enhance other district and school
reform elements?”
Analysis of research question two uses the second half o f Conceptual
Framework B and includes (a) identification of at-risk students, (b) interventions
for at-risk students, (c) the decision to socially promote or retain a student, (d)
post retention or social promotion, and (e) policy and strategy monitoring. These
framework categories will guide the description o f the practice o f policies and
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
strategies at Southern Border Middle School. Interviews and observations were
the source o f data collection for this question.
Identification o f At-Risk Students
Criteria for identification. The criteria used for identification are supposed
to be the district developed multiple criteria. The district is contracted with a data
service that provides each school site with a binder of all the previous year’s
students and their preceding spring district-assessment scores and SAT-9 scores.
The notebook also provides a breakdown of students who are at-risk and retention
candidates based on the scores. The schools are then expected to take that list and
develop profiles on each o f the students identified as at-risk or retention
candidates.
When the school was asked how they identify students at-risk, the Title 1
Coordinator said it was purely by students’ SAT-9 scores. “In the second year of
implementation, they are identified if they fall below the 20th percentile in math or
English.” The school’s process for identification varied from the district
guidelines, and although they made the decision to retain or promote based on
multiple criteria, the identification o f at-risk students was based simply on SAT-9
scores. It was unclear why the site did not use the data, including multiple
assessments, given to them by the district.
The Title 1 Coordinator describes the process used for identifying students
at-risk for the current and preceding school year. In the fall, the coordinator got a
printout from the district on students’ SAT-9 scores. She began by crosschecking
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the scores with the child’s first progress report. If the child scored low on the
SAT-9 but was receiving an A or B in math and English, they were crossed off
the list. Other students who were immediately crossed off the list were special
education students, new ESL students, and those who had just moved into the
school. The remaining names on the list were then sent to the English and math
teachers to get feedback on the child’s progress in class work and effort.
According to district guidelines, the next step for each school would be to
develop Student Achievement Profiles on each of the identified students. The
school said they did not use the district’s Student Achievement Profile, but
developed their own which tracked all o f the same information. The school
additionally used the profile to track attendance and effort as “secondary”
identification for making retention decisions.
The Title 1 Coordinator identified several problems with using only SAT-
9 scores in the identification of students. ELL students, new students, and those
who did not take the SAT-9 the previous year are not identified through the
school’s process. A concern for ELL students was that although many choose to
take the test, many others had parents who waived the test. ELL teachers are
frustrated that several o f their students receiving D’s and F’s on the second
progress report are not on the list.
Students who come into the district without the previous years SAT-9
scores will not be identified. Others who are left out are students who have
waivers, students who missed the test, or students from out of state.
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As the first year o f implementation focused on getting the right
interventions and programs, the second year is focusing on ways to identify all
students who are in need o f interventions. At the second progress report, many
students were receiving Ds and Fs with “passing” SAT-9 scores. The Title 1
Coordinator and the principal have begun discussion on what to do with this
group o f students. This discussion will then move to the Leadership Team.
The principal questioned why this discrepancy in test scores and grades is
occurring. He says that he and the Leadership Team will look at: “What is going
on in the classroom?” “Are the students bored?” “Is this occurring in specific
classes/teachers?” The school principal and coordinator hope to study trends in
data to find solutions.
Data. The district provides the data used to identify students at risk. The
data is providing the school with information to set further goals on targeted areas
or sub-groups. The school then distributes the data to departments on in-service
days. SAT-9 results are looked at in August. The departments break down the
information and develop goals for the year. In March, departments get the district
assessment data, and again create goals based on the results.
One example o f a school-wide goal based on data is from the 1999-2000
SAT-9 test results o f Southern Border Middle School. The data showed Limited
English Proficient students scoring an average of 20.5% below their non-LEP
peers. The goal was to increase the scores of ELL students who were at-risk and
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
educationally disadvantaged. The plan was to get additional training for all staff
and specifically ELL staff on effective instruction tailored to these students.
Early identification and parent notification. A student is identified as early
in his/her school career as kindergarten. Each year after, he/she is also monitored
for progress. Parents are notified at the first grading period in November if their
child is a possible retention candidate. They are also notified if the child is
academically at risk.
The district outlined a process for teachers to follow for fall Parent
Conferences. The teachers are expected to gather all the student’s previous spring
assessment data, report card, and the current year’s assessments and class work.
At the conference, the teacher is to review with the parent, the student’s
assessments and work. The parent is then told o f the child’s at-risk status and
given the following documentation with an explanation o f each: California State
Department Content Standards brochure for language art and math, grade-level
promotion criteria, a copy of the superintendent’s letter on legislation AB 1626, a
fact sheet on the social promotion and retention board policy, and a jointly
developed Individualized Remediation Plan (IRP). The IRP specifies the
interventions concluded necessary by the teacher and parent for the success o f the
child.
Southern Border Middle School follows a process that is a modification of
the preceding district guidelines. Last year, each at-risk student had a teacher who
became his/her mentor. It was the responsibility o f the mentor to contact the
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
parent and explain the at-risk status o f the child. The mentor would also discuss
the interventions appropriate for the child, and have the parent sign the Individual
Remediation Plan. Sometimes this occurred through face-to-face meetings,
whereas at other times only a phone conversation was possible. Contact was made
by the November deadline.
This year, because of negotiations, the Title 1 Coordinator had to set
appointments with all parents whose children were being considered for retention.
She had only two parents show, and she sent the rest of the notifications and
Individual Remediation Plans home by certified mail.
Parents are also notified if their child is at risk or a retention candidate on
all progress reports and report cards sent home. The list the Title 1 Coordinator
develops is sent to teachers to remind them to “bubble” in the at-risk comment on
the appropriate student report cards.
Monitoring o f at-risk students. The Title 1 Coordinator monitors the
students throughout the year by documenting their progress at all reporting
periods in October, November, January, March, and April. She created two lists to
monitor student progress: one for at-risk students, and one for retention
candidates. This list takes the place o f the district’s Student Profile document, and
looks similar to Figure 7. Assessments, grades, attendance, effort, parent contact
and the student’s interventions are listed on the form. The Title 1 Coordinator
feels her documentation is equivalent to the district’s Student Profile document.
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 7
Monitoring o f At-Risk and Retention Candidate Students
At Southern Border Middle School
Student
Grading Period
a Grade
SAT-9 Reading
SAT-9 Math
Previously A t Risk
JZ
SA
*eb
Math
£
«
tn
“ cb
sz
c
c
I
Attendance
SORT Pre
S D R 1 Post
H clow Standard (HI.I.)
L A S Oral
L A S Reading/W riting
Interventions**
Parent Contacts/Mentor
John Oct X 6 4 9 B F A/F 5 1.7 X 3/-
2
11/30
Doe
Dunn
Nov A F A/D 5
Jan
Mar
Apr
♦♦Interventions: I. Homework Club 2. Tutoring 3. Attendance Contracts
4. Daily Contract 5. Reading Lab 6. Counseling Group
7. Academic Saturday School
Last year, in addition to the monitoring by the Title 1 Coordinator, the
teachers who volunteered to be a mentor for each o f these students also looked
after the progress o f the students. A sign-up sheet was put in the teachers’ lounge,
and each teacher signed up for one or two students. As stated earlier, the teacher
then took the responsibility to contact the parents, let them know the child’s at-
risk status, fill out all the necessary paperwork, and tell the parents about their
role in working with their child to help him or her succeed. In reflecting on last
year’s process, the principal stated,
That was what we did last year, and it was working really well, but
this year, with negotiations, it’s convoluted. So this year we did
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
something different. The same premise, but we had some teachers
who chose not to take on students. The administration took many
more students. Once negotiations are settled, I’m going to start an
all-out campaign with TV and teachers to make sure all teachers
have a kid from this point on, and monitor them.
Additional monitoring occurs for some o f the students through weekly
progress reports and a Student Success Team. The Student Success Team meets
weekly with at least three students and their parents as a form of monitoring.
Typically, these are students at risk of retention who have been told on several
occasions o f their status, but are either not showing any progress or not attending
their interventions. The face-to-face meeting with parents reiterates the need for
all parties to be involved in the child’s education.
Interventions for At-Risk Students
Intervention programs. The school offers a variety of intervention
programs to help students meet grade-level standards. Teachers and
administration believe that school is offering quality interventions to meet student
needs, but it is important to note that the interventions listed below are based on
last year’s programs. Because o f the negotiation problems this year, the teachers
are not formally staffing the interventions. After-school interventions include
(a) Homework Club, (b) After-School Tutorials, (c) Saturday School, and (d) ELL
Tutorials. Typically, the programs include part instruction and part homework.
Students are given a pre- and post-test in the intervention programs. They can test
out o f the program with an adequate score as long as they are carrying C grades in
their academic classes.
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. The Homework Club is offered Tuesday through Thursday for students
who need to complete homework, receive assistance, or make up tests. The
demand for the program has increased the facilities from two to three classrooms.
Students who need the extra help are encouraged by their teachers to attend. The
principal points out that the increase in the number o f students attending the
program is due to the teachers developing relationships with the students. The
teachers are saying to the students, “Your progress reflects on me, so be there!
You need to get to these standards!'’
2. After-School Tutorials are also held Tuesday through Thursday, but are
not open to all students. Students at risk of failing are selected to participate in a
small group tutorial in reading or math. Last year, there were six after-school
tutorials based on student need: three reading classes, one math, and two
homework skills classes. Specific skills are taught, and students spend an average
of twelve weeks in the group, with mandatory attendance, monitoring, testing, and
a rigorous curriculum.
The After-School Tutorial focusing on reading uses a test to determine the
student’s reading level at the start o f the program, and the Johns IRI reading pre-
and post-test to identify progress. The math tutorial uses the district’s basic
progress math assessment (pre and post) to determine growth. The homework
skills tutorial focuses on organization, effectively using the day planners, doing
homework, taking notes, and task completion.
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Saturday Academy is another intervention program. Students who are
at-risk o f retention at any grade must attend school on Saturdays. A specific
curriculum is given in reading, math, and writing. The students rotate to the three
teachers for an hour of math, an hour o f reading, and an hour o f writing. One of
the goals in the Saturday Academy is to help students pass the district writing
assessment. Much o f the curriculum in the Saturday Academy is basic skills and
getting students ready to take the assessments.
Knowing attendance is always an issue with Saturday School, the
principal started out the year by letting the students know that he expected them to
attend. “I threatened to go over to their homes with a bull horn, knock on their
door, and wake them up. I only had to do it once for the kids to understand I was
serious. The second Saturday School o f the year, more students showed.” He
added, “You do those gimmicks because it is part of the culture, the environment,
and they make for great stories later on as the students embellish them.” The Title
1 Coordinator says “the kids like the Saturday program because there are good
teachers there.”
4. The principal also created tutorials specifically for bilingual students at-
risk o f retention. Three After-School Tutorials classes are held for ELL students.
One is Tuesday through Thursday; one is Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; and
one is Tuesday and Thursday only. Two o f the tutorials include ELL students who
have not been identified at risk because they have not taken the SAT-9, yet are
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
receiving D and F grades in their core classes. The remaining tutorial targets the
ELL students who are on the " ‘considered for retention” list.
One o f the teachers, a bilingual Hispanic male teacher hired for the
program, began the year as a part-time physical education teacher. The teacher
says he receives direction from the principal on the curriculum on which to focus.
The teacher feels his job is not only to help the students with their homework, but
with some o f the other difficulties bilingual students face in school. “These kids
will ask me questions that they won’t ask their teachers because they can ask me
in Spanish. I explain to them how important it is for them to ask the questions in
class. I also help them become more organized and encourage the use o f their
agenda.” The other teacher is an ELL teacher who provides instruction for the
identified students, as well as for any others in her class who need help.
Students are assigned interventions based on their deficiencies. For
example, if a child is low in both English and math, he/she is assigned Saturday
Academy. If they are low in one area, they are assigned that specific tutorial.
Sometimes, after assessing the student in the tutorial, the instructor will find the
child actually has the skills, but is not putting them to use. The homework-skills
tutorial is then assigned to those students.
Intervention classes. Several intervention classes exist within the student’s
regular school day. These classes are used for a combination o f at-risk, retained,
and socially promoted students and include: (a) Study Skills Class, (b) Reading
Class, and (c) Alternative Learning Program.
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Study Skills is an elective class provided to 7th and 8th grade students
who were retained or are at risk o f retention. The curriculum is specific and based
on research. It includes areas such as taking responsibility, learning to get
organized, note taking, and more.
2. A Reading Class is offered as an elective for some students, and is
required for those at risk o f retention. Because all 6th graders take reading as an
elective, only 7th and 8th grade students take this elective. The curriculum is
directly focused on state Reading Standards, and includes half direct instruction,
and half computer time. The software includes Josten’s Reading and Compass,
which focuses on comprehension, word study, study skills, and vocabulary. The
students are tested at the start of the year, and are then placed on an individualized
computer program to track growth.
3. The Alternative Learning Program is another intervention available to
at-risk or retained students. For the 2000-2001 school year, three retained students
were placed in the program. The class is self-contained, with 15 students, one
teacher, and an aid. Although, many o f the students in the program were referred
because of poor behavior, the program offers a different curriculum from what the
students had previously, and it works on the behavior issues that are affecting the
student’s academics. The curriculum is very individualized and takes the students
from where they are academically to where they should be. A goal o f the teacher
is to build relationships with the students, and help them develop a more positive
attitude toward school. The problem with using any specific curriculum is the
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
high turnover rate within the class, as the students are extremely high risk. Many
are taken out o f their homes or put in the district’s alternative program for
behavior.
Other interventions. Counseling is also prescribed as an intervention.
Counselors hold groups three days a week, and depending on student needs, the
counselors will work with at-risk students in different areas. Some students’ poor
performance is compounded by their inability to learn organizational skills.
Counselors will take small groups o f students and help them sort through their
backpacks, organize class work, and keep track o f assignments. Middle school
seems to be a difficult time for students to master this skill, but it helps immensely
in their daily performance. Counselors also provide counseling groups when
factors that put students at risk are more social than academic.
Daily contracts are also used as a means of intervention to provide
communication from home to school, and to monitor student progress. If parents
are supportive and will return signed contracts, students have teachers sign a daily
report on progress and behavior.
Individual teacher volunteer help is another type o f intervention offered
informally to students. In interviewing students, many mentioned that their
teachers offered to help them out. One socially promoted student said, “In math,
the teacher helped a lot to get me caught up. She offered to help after school. Now
I have an A in pre-algebra.” A caught-up 8th grader also says, “My science teacher
always tells me we can come and get help.” A retained 7th grader says, “One
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teacher says if I need help, I could come before school, but I have never taken her
up on it.”
Individualized interventions. In addition to the preceding interventions, the
school develops unique programs or interventions for some students. Depending
on the needs o f the individual, the interventions can become very specific. For
example, the Title 1 Coordinator explains, “A student may need two periods o f
math, and we change his schedule to accommodate that need.” Or, “We may
develop a plan with the parent that holds the student to a specific regimen at
school.” Individualized interventions are often developed at the Student Success
Team meetings.
All students, though, are assigned an intervention to suit their needs, and
they are grouped according to the areas in which they need help. The Title 1
Coordinator admits that within the intervention programs, “Some teachers are
better at providing individualization than others.”
Interventions through the eves o f students. Interviews with students
revealed some o f the successes and failures o f the interventions. The students
were asked four questions, and the following three are addressed below: (a) What
happens if you don’t meet grade-level standards by the end o f the school year?
(b) How do you get caught up? And (c) Do you believe that you are improving in
your academics? The responses from one socially promoted student, one retained
student, and one caught-up student give insight into the students’ perception on
which interventions they see as helping them be successful.
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
One 8th grade, socially promoted Hispanic male was interviewed. He
received a B in English and a C in Math on his first progress report He was
identified for intervention based on his 18th percentile in SAT-9 Reading and
Math. He maintains good attendance and received a six out o f twelve on the
district writing assessment. His Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test placed him at a
grade equivalency of 3.8.
(What happens if you don’t meet grade-level standards by the end
o f the year?) I’m doing good cuz I got all As and Bs and one C+. I
know if I met standards by my grades. A, B, and C is standard and
Ds and Fs are not meeting standard. I worry about being retained
because I didn’t want to stay in the 7th grade, but I was worried
about going on to the next grade because I didn’t want to be more
behind than I was. (How do you get “caught up”?) I started
concentrating on my work more the 1st trimester o f this year. In
math, the teacher helped a lot to get me caught up. She offered
help after school. Now I have an A in pre-algebra. I am in the
Homework class after school. I study more, and I pay attention
more. My parents said I have to pass, otherwise they will keep
grounding me. To get help, I also call a friend to ask how to do the
work. I don’t want the answers; I want to know how to do it. This
year I made some new friends that care a little more about school. I
have to do chores and homework before I go out, and my parents
ground me if I get bad grades. (Do you believe that you are
improving in your academics?) Yes, I get encouragement from my
teachers and parents now that I am getting good grades. My
parents reward me. I think I am improving because I want to do
good now and because o f the help. Also, two o f my friends were
retained and that really woke me up. Before, I used to get referrals
and get sent to the office a lot. This year, I haven’t got sent once.
School is easier because I’m not getting in trouble and paying
attention more.
This socially promoted student improved over the previous year.
A 7th grade retained Hispanic male student was also interviewed. He was
in the 3rd percentile in reading and the 11th percentile in math on the SAT-9. He
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
received a D- in English and a B in math on his first progress report. His
attendance was good, and he was at a 3rd grade reading level according to the
SDRT.
(What happens if you don’t meet grade-level standards by the end
o f the school year?) You get another chance in summer school, and
then if you don’t pass that, you get retained. Standards are how you
keep up and what you have to do to not fail. I know I’ve met
standards by my grades. I tried harder this year than last year. I
don’t worry about being retained because I had bad grades before.
They [teachers] always told me I would get retained before
because I almost always had Ds and Fs, and they never retained. I
tried at the start o f the year, but in the middle o f the year, I stopped
caring. I didn’t try. I think I’m never going to do nothing good
anyway, so I stop trying. It’s not really me to try. I’ve always done
bad and not done my work, so trying wasn’t really me. (How do
you get “caught up”?) I was getting tutoring after school, but I
didn’t go much. I hung out with my friends. I used to think they
were better than school. I had reading class as an elective, and one
teacher says if I need help I should come before school. But I have
never taken her up on it. One teacher helps me read better because
I used to say the same words twice [stutter]. My mom speaks
Spanish at home. She gets mad when I get bad grades. She grounds
me and takes away my skateboard. She won’t let me get sponsored
for skateboarding if I get bad grades. She makes me read books
and won’t let me go outside to play. But she works hard and is not
home when I get home. She wants me to have a good job and help
support her. She wants me to go to college. My mom used to be a
teacher in Mexico. (Do you believe that you are improving your
academics?) I think I’m stupid. No matter how hard I try, I still get
it wrong. My sisters are not around to help out. I think I am doing
better because I saw my progress report, and I was doing all my
work. I feel more successful because I haven’t tried harder in my
whole life than this year. I think the reason for improvement is
because I’m just trying harder.
According to teachers, this student is not improving academically, and is not
attending interventions.
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A student who was on the at-risk for retention list, but caught up, was also
interviewed. This 8th grade Hispanic male scored in the 9th percentile in reading
and the 11th percentile in math on the SAT-9. He is receiving a D in English and a
C in math, with fairly good attendance. His SDRT test puts him at a 2.6 grade
equivalency in reading. He responds to the questions in the following way:
(What happens if you don’t meet grade-level standards by the end
o f the school year?) I don’t know what standards are, but my
teachers told me if I don’t make good grades I couldn’t pass.
Sometimes I worry about being retained when I get my report card.
My first report card I got good grades, and my mom was happy
and said keep it up. (How do you get “caught up”?) I go to [the
ELL] tutorial to get extra help. My mom helps me a lot in math.
On Wednesday when I don’t have tutorial, my mom helps me with
math. My science teacher always tells me we can come and get
help. One time I came after school to get extra help from him. (Do
you believe that you are improving in your academics?) Yes,
because I am paying more attention than last year, because I want
to make it to high school next year. I am trying my hardest. My
mom says this is the year for you to do your best. She inspired me
to do it for me. Last year, I didn’t go to tutorial much, and this year
I think it is helping me.
This student attributed his improvement to his mother, his own effort, and his
teachers.
Connection of interventions to other school reform efforts and the regular
program. The connection between interventions and other school reforms is
strong. As the principal stated and research supports, good intervention begins
with good classroom instruction. The focus o f the reform effort at the school is
improving instruction, and that is why they chose the Ventures model for
educational reform.
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Preceding the 1998-1999 school year, Southern Border Middle School had
been the lowest performing school in the district (27 schools) for more than three
years. The low standardized test scores reflected the need for a different approach
in presenting information to students. The staff-development provided by
Ventures focused on ways o f getting students involved in higher-level thinking
and how to express thoughts and feelings. These strategies focused on direct
application to the classroom.
The changing demographics o f the district and school also created the
need to look at improving instruction. With the number of newcomers tripling in
the past three years, the English Language Learner population continued to grow.
The Venture’s model fit the need to provide more active student-centered
instruction, and to enhance curriculum strategies that are aligned to the state
content standards in reading, language arts, and math. Standards-based reform
was not only a part o f the district reform strategy, but was supported by Ventures
as well.
Being in the second year o f implementing reform strategies, the principal
expects the strategies to be used in the classrooms. He says, “We know when kids
think critically, they do better in areas on SAT-9 such as expository reading. This
is our second year [into standards-based reform] and my evaluation instrument
now incorporates Ventures strategies and standards.”
Other school reform efforts and programs identified by the principal at
Southern Border Middle School include: (a) alignment of standards; (b) school-
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
wide silent sustained reading; (c) use o f Harcourt Brace Diagnostic; (d) PQR
essay writing process; (e) AVID; (f) spelling aligned to SAT-9; and (g) school
unifiers such as common headings, Cornell note-taking, and pre-post testing.
AVID is a program specifically designed to prepare and encourage students to go
to college. Being an AVID demonstration school, the site models the strategies
and techniques for other sites. The principal talks about the reforms as affecting
the whole school:
AVID permeates our whole school. Even when we have staff
meetings, we use Cornell notes to model that. The techniques and
strategies that are used in the classrooms are AVID techniques.
Fifty to sixty percent o f our teachers are AVID trained so you can
see it in the classroom. We have a lot of school “unifiers”... every
kid puts their heading on their paper the same way. Every teacher
in each classroom is made to put their assignment in their planner.
SSR is another “reform”— SSR every morning. I have eliminated
the electives for the 6th graders and implemented reading class for
all o f them.
A big piece o f the Ventures reform at Southern Border Middle School is to
build students’ self-confidence in their ability to see themselves as successful
learners. Based on the interviews with at risk-students, this school-wide reform
may be a key to intervention. Many o f these students did not believe they were or
ever could be successful. A 7th grade retained ELL student claimed, “I couldn’t do
the work so I just gave up. I don’t try anymore, because I feel I will just fail
again.”
Another retained 7th grade boy says, “I stopped caring.. .1 didn’t try. I
think I’m never going to do nothing good anyway so I stop trying...I’ve always
done bad. I think I’m stupid. No matter how hard I try, I still get it wrong.” Those
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students who caught up had a higher self-confidence in their ability to succeed,
and attributed their success to trying harder and asking for the help they needed.
Formative assessments used for monitoring. Specific pre-and post-tests are
used in the intervention programs to monitor growth. The District Basic Progress
Math Assessment is used to monitor growth in mathematics, and the Johns IRI is
used for English. Formative assessment is used not only for at-risk students, but
for all students to monitor progress. The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test is
administered as a pre-and mid-year test to measure growth. The test is given in
October and again in March. It measures the areas of vocabulary, comprehension,
and scanning.
Teachers and students receive printouts o f the results, and a diagnostic
prescription is given to teachers to support improving instruction in weak areas.
After receiving the results, teachers bring the data to the department meetings to
analyze the results. The teachers look for patterns across their classes, within each
class, and any surprise scores for individual students. Each teacher then develops
a goal or plan for each class. Then the teachers look at the aggregate results and
develop a goal for the department.
A District Basic Skills Math Test is given three times during the year, as
well as the district Writing Assessment. The math department also uses the results
to guide and modify their instruction.
Several teacher interviews also indicated that classroom assessments were
used to determine the pace or content o f the next lesson. The reading teacher said,
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“Mini assessments in the class guide instruction, and allow me to individualize to
the group o f students in that particular class.”
Parent notification and involvement. Parents are encouraged and reminded
to take shared responsibility for their child’s academic progress. Each parent is
contacted in November and either given or sent the child’s Individualized
Remediation Plan. Parent and student responsibilities are stated on the plan. The
child’s required interventions are also listed on the plan. A list o f parent
responsibilities is included in Figure 8.
Figure 8
Parent’s Responsibilities as Listed on the
Individualized Remediation Plan for Student Below Standard in Language
Arts/Math
Reinforce good effort Support daily or weekly progress
reports as per agreement
Ensure regular and on-time
attendance
Encourage student to ask for help
when needed
Check homework assignments Ensure regular attendance at
intervention sessions
Ensure homework completion Encourage reading each night
Follow remediation plan
requirements
Quiz student on basic math facts
Require student to follow
school rules
Knowledge of grade level
standards
Other
If, for example, the parent says that the child cannot go to Saturday
Academy because he is out o f town every weekend, the principal will be flexible
and work with the parent to provide an alternative intervention. If the child still
does not attend the alternative intervention, the principal will make it clear to the
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
parent and child that this is the opportunity the school is offering to keep the
student from being retained. He will follow up by saying, if the student does not
improve academically, and is not attending the intervention, he/she will be
retained.
Lack o f parent support is a frustration with which the site continues to
struggle. Last year, the principal personally visited the home o f every parent
whose child was a retention candidate. He concludes as follows:
We can expect and demand from the students, but there comes a
point where we’ve done what we can do. The parents are not
expecting from them. I keep telling the students that interventions
are not a punishment, but an opportunity for them to get help. But
when it’s not backed up by parents, the kids don’t see it.
Although the school did not get the full involvement of parents in the first year,
and in the second year negotiations limited teachers’ contact with parents, the
schools’ goal is to get more involvement in the coming year.
Evaluation of interventions for effectiveness. As this is only the second
year of implementation, there is only one year’s worth of data to evaluate. But the
Title 1 Coordinator notes that,
Interventions are evaluated for effectiveness through the
monitoring of students’ improvement. Many of the students who
qualified as at-risk last year, did not qualify this year. Grades and
attendance also help us evaluate the effectiveness o f the
interventions. We are just beginning to monitor this, though, and
we need to get more defined ways to monitor the effectiveness o f
the different programs.
At the end o f the year, she also held a meeting with all of the intervention
teachers. She asked for feedback on how effective they felt the programs were for
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students, how meaningful they saw the programs to be, and she asked for a
temperature o f their burnout level.
The teachers responded positively with ideas for improvement and
recollections o f success. Motivational ideas for the following year were discussed.
They saw student growth in student achievement, and one teacher explained how
impressed she was with the reading program. Not only did she see student success
with the “Wildcat” series reading program, but she also mentioned how easy it
was to use. She was considering using it in her regular class.
The Decision to Socially Promote or Retain a Student
Decision-making. The district specifies that the final decision to promote
is made by the teacher, while a decision to retain must be m ade by the entire
Promotion/Retention Committee. If the rest o f the Retention/Promotion
committee concludes that the student should be promoted, the teacher does not
have the right to say he/she will be retained. The teacher does, however, have the
right to override a retention decision and say he/she believes the child should be
promoted against the will o f the rest o f the committee. And if the parent agrees,
that decision stands.
The students are being monitored throughout the year for progress. By the
last trimester, the number o f students on the “candidates for retention” list has
greatly diminished because o f the progress that students m ade over the course of
the year. The names of the remaining retention candidates will then be the focus
of the meetings scheduled for the Retention/Promotion Committee in May.
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
By the end o f the 1999-2000 school year, negotiation problems had
already set in, and despite the teachers getting paid for attending Committee
meetings, it was not part o f the contracted day. Knowing that many teachers
would not attend, the Title 1 Coordinator sent a list o f the retention candidates to
the teachers and asked them to fill out the teacher comment section on their
recommendation for retention/promotion. The Title 1 Coordinator and the
principal then sat down to look at the remaining students. The principal describes
the process in the following way:
We [the school] ultimately make the decision. We get the criteria
from the district and then we sit down because there are always
extenuating circumstances. And then at the end, with those kids
that have been identified for retention, our committee sits down
and talks about the kid. We ask, is this in the best interest o f the
kid to retain? And we look at all the factors. They may not have
met all the standards, but is it best? Are there extenuating
circumstances?”
The Title 1 Coordinator clarified the circumstances that may cause a
student to be crossed off the retention list. If a student continues to receive low
scores and to do poorly on classroom assessments, yet is receiving A ’s in effort
from his/her teacher and is attending all required interventions, it may be a sign
the child is working up to his/her ability. “If their effort is high, but their grades
are low, we usually promote,” said the Title 1 Coordinator. Students who are
likely to be retained are those who, in addition to low test scores, receive F grades
in English and math and are not showing any effort in classes, or are failing to
attend interventions.
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Some of the reasons given for social promotion include low functioning,
ESL level, and special education placement during the year. The principal
observes, “There is no list o f reasons for social promotion, but we look at what is
in the best interest of the child.” Special circumstances and parent input may also
lead to social promotion.
Based on the district criteria, teacher input, and student progress, the
decision to promote or retain is made. The list o f students is then sent to the
district office, and the school sends out a notification letter that very day to alert
the parent o f retention or promotion.
Appeal process. The retention notification letter that parents receive in
May contains the process for appealing the decision. Parents are instructed to pick
up an appeal form from the school office, and they must submit the appeal within
ten calendar days of receiving the letter. All appeals go directly to the assistant
superintendent at the district office.
Post Retention or Social Promotion
Services and placement offered to retained students. The Title 1
Coordinator continues to monitor all retained students the following year. The
student’s placement is determined based on his/her needs, although the options for
retained students are fairly limited. The school attempts to provide retained
students with a different teacher and a different intervention than the preceding
year. “That is the goal, but due to scheduling, that doesn’t always happen,” says
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the principal. The site is admittedly weak on providing a different curriculum to
retained students.
One o f the only programs to offer a differentiated curriculum to retained
students is the Alternative Learning Program. This placement is ideal for students
whose associated problems are disciplinary in nature. As mentioned previously,
the class is self-contained, and in addition to academics, the teacher works on
building social skills and a relationship with the students. One o f the retained
students interviewed attributes some o f her success this year to the fact that she is
in the program. She says she feels more successful now because, “I am not in the
office this year. I used to get in trouble a lot for talking back to teachers.” She
adds, “My teacher helps me now, and I don’t have any Fs. He helps me more than
the teachers did last year.” The alternative setting was the ideal placement for this
student.
If the retained student is not a discipline problem, the placement may not
be as beneficial to the child. Retention students are generally given a reading and
study skills class with new curriculum, but the core classes are very similar.
Services and placement offered to socially promoted students. Socially
promoted students also continue to be monitored the following year. Each student
is required to have a remediation plan for the following year. Again, this plan is
individualized, based on the student’s needs. Students are often required to take
the Reading Class or the Study Skills Class as their elective. They also receive the
162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
benefit of ail new teachers and a new curriculum, while avoiding the stigma of
retention.
Options and associated motivation. The principal attempted to alleviate the
stigma o f retention that the students feel, and to give them motivation to do their
best. In September, he gave the retained students an opportunity to move to the
next grade. He met with the retained students and said,
Listen, this whole idea o f retention is not a punishment. It is up to
you and it is your responsibility, but you did not fulfill the
requirements and quite frankly some o f you just blew us off. You
have an opportunity to get out and move on to the next grade. This
is how we will do it. We will monitor your first report card, and if
you are doing well and your grades are substantially higher AND
you have been attending the interventions, then I will seriously
consider moving you to the next grade.
He added, “What happened is-and we are all learning from this-that we looked at
their grades, and they just aren’t doing it.” No retained students were progressing
well enough to move to the next grade. Many o f them were not attending
interventions nor putting forth any effort in class.
The principal said that he tried to give the kids a new teacher and to
communicate the student’s individual needs to that teacher, but even after
eliminating all the issues o f special needs,
They still aren’t making it. They just aren’t engaged. They want it,
but they aren’t willing to put in the effort. If only I could figure out
how to get them to want it. They are all real concerned, but they
don’t have the spirit within them to drive themselves to do better,
and I know they can, because many of them are bright kids.
Helping students to develop an internal motivation to succeed was a goal for all of
the teachers interviewed. Especially in the middle-school years, this is a concern.
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“Middle school kids only want three things. They want to be popular. They want
to have friends, and they want to look good. I can't talk to them about their future
because they don’t care. I only talk to them about the present,” says the principal.
The principal feels very strongly about the necessity for adult/child
bonding for all students, as well as for the retained and socially promoted. He
says, “The bonding o f adult to kid is real important, because kids will want to do
for someone if they like you.” The interviews with retained and socially promoted
students underlined the importance o f the student/teacher relationship in the
success of the student. One student had to be interviewed a day early because he
was going to his 20-year-old cousin's funeral, who had just been killed in a gang
incident. When asked his goals for the year, this socially promoted student
responded,
First, to have teachers say “You’re doing real good in this class.”
Second, to get all As and Bs. Third, to go to high school and get to
know my teachers there, so I can have a good teacher-student
relationship. I know it’s important to have a relationship with my
teachers.
When asked if he was more successful this year, one retained student responded,
“I’m not doing well in Science because the teacher is mean. She yells if you get
out o f your seat. Even the good kids don’t like her.” Another retained student,
who is doing better this year adds, “My teacher is tutoring me after school. I feel
comfortable asking him for help. I didn’t ask the teachers last year. I didn’t like
them.”
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reporting o f social promotion or retention. If the Retention/Promotion
Committee believes the child should be promoted without meeting the criteria,
they must create an intervention plan for the child for the following year. Also,
when a child is retained, a plan must be created to inform the child’s success for
the following year. This plan, along with the letter identifying the retention or
social promotion, is placed in the child’s cum file.
Although this took place for the 6th and 7th grade students who were
socially promoted or retained last year, the Title 1 Coordinator admits that it did
not occur for the 8th graders last year. Whether it was because of the middle
school’s unfamiliarity with the high school’s resources, or was simply an
oversight was unclear.
Policy and Strategy Monitoring: Linking Policy to Practice
Monitoring for effectiveness. The district has a Retention Committee that
meets several times a year. Typically the principal, a teacher, and the Title 1
Coordinator from each school are a part of this committee. The committee was set
up to specifically discuss successes, problems, or concerns with the way the
policy and strategies are working. The district administrator recognizes that the
implementation is “an on-going process” and has the committee provide feedback
for improvement.
Data monitoring. The only data required at the district level are the
number of retentions. Last year, the district saw 114 retentions. When asked
whether social promotion data was requested from the sites, the assistant
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
superintendent responded that they did not need to know that information. “There
are so many reasons why the Retention/Promotion Committee may have felt it
was in the best interest of the child to move on, I don’t think we need to gather
that information.”
The Title 1 Coordinator at the school responded that although they have
not kept data on social promotion in the past, she feels it would be beneficial to
the site. She adds, “Other sites don’t keep that data because they are not required
to. Why would they start doing it now unless they are told to?” Neither the district
nor the school specifically mentioned how they would use the data, and neither
mentioned disaggregating the data.
Summary o f Research Question Two Data
The data from the second research question reveals that the identification
of students at risk o f retention in the school does not follow the district guidelines
of multiple criteria. The school has created a variety of interventions to meet the
needs o f students, and it monitors the identified students in a consistent manner.
The school follows the district guidelines in making retention decisions,
however, the process was modified in the 1999-2000 school year because of
contract problems. Post retention, the school does not always provide
differentiated instruction, but they do continue to monitor students and provide
them with interventions. Socially promoted students are also monitored and given
interventions to meet their needs. Overall, the school hopes to use assessment data
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
on student progress to modify the interventions and strategies that have been
implemented to develop more effective interventions.
Negotiation problems between the district and the teachers’ union severely
impacted intervention programs. The first year o f implementation saw the use of
multiple intervention programs at the school. With teachers adhering to a strict
interpretation o f the “workday,” intervention programs were not staffed in the
second year o f implementation. Teachers were discouraged by colleagues from
working after-school hours.
Although the problem did not seem to affect the relationship o f teachers to
administration at the school level, it certainly affected the ability o f administration
to ensure that students were provided with appropriate interventions. Some
teachers continued to provide “low-key” after-school tutoring, and one ELL
intervention program continued to be staffed. Primarily, any intervention offered
to students in the second year o f implementation had to be included in the
teacher’s contracted workday. Additionally, parent contact was limited, as many
parents did not get home from work until after the teacher workday, and most
teachers dropped the voluntary duty o f being mentors for at-risk students.
The school does not use multiple criteria in identifying students at risk of
retention. Although the district provides multiple assessment data to the site for
purposes o f identification, the school uses solely the SAT-9 scores o f students to
create the original list o f at-risk students. This causes problems at the school, as
some students do not enter the district with SAT-9 scores, and some students have
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the test waived by their parents. Teachers are further concerned that the needs o f
students who score above the cut-off on the SAT-9, but continue to fail then-
academic courses are not being addressed. Greater alignment is needed between
grades and SAT-9 scores to ensure student accountability.
Social promotion and retention strategies strongly coordinate to other
school reform efforts. The coordination of the district initiated standards-based
reform, and the Ventures reform model chosen by the school enhance the
instruction offered to all students, thereby reducing the number of at-risk students.
The two reforms emphasize the use of assessment data to identify
individuals and groups o f students at risk. The reforms focus the faculty on
identifying instructional strategies to meet the needs o f at-risk students, and using
higher level thinking to engage students in learning. Aligning instruction,
curriculum, and assessments to the standards is a component o f both reforms that
creates a stronger alignment between teacher grades and the standards-based
assessments used as retention criteria. Without the training received through the
implementation of the reforms, the policies and strategies would not be as
effective.
Research Question Three: Adequacy o f Design
Framework for Research Question Three
The third research question asks, “How adequate is the design o f the
district and school's social promotion and retention policy and strategy?” Three
measures o f adequacy are used within this question: Description of State Policy
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Conceptual Framework C), Descriptive Comparison o f New Context and
Traditional Context Social Promotion and Retention Policies and Strategies
(Conceptual Framework D), and Description of Standards Based Reform
(Conceptual Framework E).
The more aligned the district/school design is to the statutory elements in
the state policy, the more adequate the design. A review of the district’s policy
relative to the state policy framework was documented on the researcher rating
form to determine alignment.
Another measure of adequacy is the alignment of the policy and strategies
relative to Traditional versus New-Context policies and strategies (Conceptual
Framework D). The closer the policy is aligned with new-context policies and
strategies, the more adequate the policy. On this measure of adequacy,
observations, interviews, and the teacher questionnaire were used as the basis for
the researcher’s rating of alignment.
The final measure of adequacy is how well the policy and strategies on
social promotion and retention related to the broader standards-based reform.
Conceptual Framework E describes the key elements o f the reform. Again,
interviews, observations, and the teacher questionnaire formed the basis of the
researcher’s ratings identifying alignment. The closer the district and school
policy and strategies aligned with the elements in standards-based reform, the
more adequate it was judged to be.
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Alignment with State Policy
The district administrator made it very clear that the intent o f the
committee was to follow the statutes and intent o f the legislation. She stated that
the “committee met and went step by step through the legislation.” In doing so,
the policy includes all o f the legislative elements in AB 1626, either in words or
in practice.
Researcher ratings on alignment with state policy. Table 8 presents the
researcher’s rating on the alignment between the statutes in AB 1626 and the
district’s policy. The table identifies both the intended and implemented rating.
The intended alignment focuses on the inclusion o f the statutes within the district
policy and regulations, while the implemented alignment rates the execution of
the statutes at the school site.
Table 8
Alignment with State Policy:
Results from Researcher Rating
Alignment Alignment
__________________ Component____________________Intended Implemented
Local Policy on Pupil Promotion and Retention 5 5
Criteria For Retention 5 5
Exception To Retention Criteria 5 5
The New Local Policy 5 5
Exceeding Retention Criteria S 5
Supplemental Instruction For Pupils In Grades 5 5
2-9 Who Have Been Retained __________ __
Programs o f Supplemental Instruction For Pupils 5 5
Who Have Low Scores___________________________________________
Program Implementation 5 3
Pupils Completing Grade 6 Or Grade 9 5 5
Legislative Intent________________ 5___________ 5^
Note. Researcher ratings made on a 5-point scale (1 = not aliened. 2=somewhat
non-aligned. 3=mixed between aligned and non-aligned. 4=somewhat aligned.
and 5 = very aligned).
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The intended and implemented alignment was very aligned to state statutes.
The only area o f non-alignment is in the area o f Program Implementation, and due
to negotiation problems within the district. The school fully implemented the
intervention programs in the previous year, but failed to do so in the 2000-2001
school year. Each o f the ten statutory elements is highlighted below with a brief
explanation o f their alignment.
Local policy on pupil promotion and retention. The district adopted a
policy regarding the promotion and retention o f pupils between all specified
grades, while adding the grade level between 1st and 2n d grade. The policy also
based the identification o f students at risk o f retention on the subjects specified at
the different grade levels.
Criteria for retention. The district used both the STAR results and other
indicators as criteria for retention. The Administrative Regulations state the
“Students shall be identified as ‘at risk’ o f retention on the review and analysis of
the following multiple criteria: district-wide assessments (math, reading, and
writing), graded in math, reading, writing, and English using district-approved
curriculum and tests, and state testing and reporting.” District guidelines went
further to specifically state the cut-off scores needed on each test.
Exception to retention criteria. The exception to retention criteria listed in
the bill is copied almost word for word in the district’s policy. The policy
provides for the pupil’s classroom teacher to specify in writing that retention is
not an appropriate intervention.
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The new local policy. The new policy provides for early parental
notification, and an appeal process. It further provides for notifying parents of
interventions available to their student. The district-developed, Individualized
Remediation Plan, identifies the teacher responsible for making the decision, and
the school's plan for providing remediation for the child. Moreover, the policy
was adopted at a public meeting o f the governing board.
Exceeding retention criteria. The only additional criteria adopted by the
board, is a retention provision between first and second grade, as well as between
the mandated grades.
Supplemental instruction for pupils in grades 2-9 who have been retained.
The district policy provides for remedial opportunities and instruction for all
students who have been retained. The school provides interventions to retained
students, although the quality of some o f the interventions is questionable.
Programs o f supplemental instruction for students who have low scores.
The policy also provides for services to students who have been identified as
having a deficiency in mathematics, reading, or written expression, based on the
results o f multiple criteria.
Program implementation. The policy specifically addresses the
supplemental services available to students. Supplemental services were not
available to all identified students in the 2000-2001 school year because o f
negotiation problems. But the policy did provide for the funding o f an intensive
remedial program in reading and written expression including phonemic
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
awareness, systematic explicit phonics, decoding, work-attack skill, spelling and
vocabulary, explicit instruction in reading comprehension, writing, and study
skills. Students in 2nd through 6th grade who have been retained are required to
participate.
Pupils completing grade 6 or grade 9. The district policy does not
specifically identify the grade levels in which students may attend summer school,
but leaves it broadly open as an intervention for all grades.
Legislative intent. The intent of the district policy, early identification
based on standards and early intervention for remediation, clearly follows the
legislative intent.
Alignment with New Context Social Promotion and Retention Policies and
Strategies
Conceptual Framework D describes the qualities of the Traditional
Context and the New Context policies and strategies for retention and social
promotion. The closer the district and school policies and strategies align to new-
context policies and strategies, the more adequate the policy is rated by the
researcher.
Researcher ratings for alignment with new-context policies and strategies
for social promotion and retention. Based on the evidence gathered in the two-
weeks of data collection, the districts policies and strategies for social promotion
and retention are rated 4.41 out o f 5 by the researcher. The implementation o f the
policies and strategies at the school are rated a 3.75 out o f 5. The district received
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a higher rating because the policy and guidelines established at the district level
contain a majority o f new-context elements. The school, however, is not fully
implementing the policy as intended by the district, causing a weaker alignment to
new-context policy. Although the district falls short of complete alignment in a
few areas, the district administrator mentioned they are viewing the policies and
strategies as a work in progress and will continue to improve them. Table 9 shows
the average rating for each component, along with the total average alignment for
both the district and the school.
Table 9
Alignment with New-Context Social Promotion and
Retention Policies and Strategies:
Results from Researcher Rating
Component
Alignment
Intended
Alignment
Implemented
Beliefs 4 3
Policy Context 5 3.5
Grade Levels 4 5
Subgroups 3 3
Curriculum, Instruction and
Programs
4.5 3.5
Formative Assessment 5 3
Summative Assessment 5 5
Assessment Data 5 5
Identification for Intervention 5 3
Interventions 4 4
Responsibility 5 4.5
Accountability 5 4
Decision-making For Social
Promotion or Retention
4 3.5
Notification 5 4
Post Social Promotion or Retention 4 3
Policy and Strategy Monitoring 3 3
Average Alignment 4.41 3.75
Note. Researcher ratings made on a 5-point scale fl=Very traditional.
2=Somewhat traditional. 3=Mixed between traditional and new contex
4=Somewhat new context and 5=Verv new context).
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data supporting the researcher’s rating will follow each component. Also, an
explanation o f the difference between new-context and traditional-context in each
o f the sixteen components will precede the data.
Beliefs. New-context beliefs move away from the following traditional
ideas that: (a) a socially promoted or retained student is the problem, not the
curriculum or instruction being provided; (b) serious consequences will motivate
students; (c) students should be socially promoted or retained based on
developmental immaturity and/or lack o f exposure to the curriculum and
instruction; and (d) students must master one level of graded curriculum before
they can proceed to the next. New context beliefs hold that all students can leam
and achieve at high levels, and that students are motivated by intrinsic reasons
that do not include the “fear of failure."
The district is somewhat aligned with new context beliefs. The belief that
all students can leam is supported in the district and school mission statements
and goals, but whether all students can reach high standards is missing in district
documents. Also, based on the Teacher Questionnaire, teachers did not strongly
agree that the district believed all students could meet high standards.
The school has a mixed alignment between new-context and traditional-
context beliefs. The school does support the belief that all students can achieve
high standards in its documents. For example, the mission statement for Southern
Border Middle School is to “provide a caring and productive environment where
rigorous and challenging academic standards will direct students to develop their
175
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
skills and abilities to reach their greatest potential.” The Venture’s reform model
that the school adopted also specifically states that “The belief all students can
leam is especially important for populations at risk. Building students’ self-
confidence and their ability to see themselves as successful learners is an integral
part o f the Ventures’ program.”
In their documentation, the school has embraced the new-context
approach, but some o f the teachers still hold the traditional belief that the act of
retention should send a strong message to other students that they are serious
about student achievement. For example, many teachers were upset when the 8th
grade retainees were allowed into a pre-9th grade program at the high school
because it appeared as though they were allowed to move on despite failing to
meet standards. Many felt that this sent the wrong message to students. Table 10
indicates the school’s overall belief that students can leam. It also shows a
possible discrepancy between the district and school’s shared vision concerning
beliefs.
Table 10
Beliefs:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Belief n* Average
The school believes that all students can meet high 41 3.02
standards.
The school believes that the entire learning community
is responsible for helping students to succeed.
42 3.10
Members o f the organization share a vision focused
around the belief that all students can and must leam.
40 2.90
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disaeree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat 3=agree somewhat and 4 = agree strongly).
"Number o f teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Policy context. Traditional policy context does not include clear
organizational policies and strategies, whereas new-context provides well-
publicized, coherent policies and strategies that are implemented throughout the
organization. The district is very much aligned with new context, while the school
is somewhat aligned with new context in this area. The district policies and
strategies for promotion and retention are clearly delineated in the board policy
and administrative regulations. The new policy was well-publicized to the
community, and provides a coherent strategy for the entire district.
At the school site, the policies and strategies are not consistently
implemented as stated in the board policy. Students are not identified based on
multiple measures, nor are parents always made aware o f the specific criteria on
which their child is assessed.
Grade levels. Traditional-context policies and strategies most often use
retention at the kindergarten and first-grade levels. New-context policies and
strategies view student achievement important at all grade levels. Sunny Union
School District’s policy is somewhat aligned with new context. It does provide for
the identification o f students who are at risk o f retention at all grade levels, and
achievement is encouraged at all grade levels. Yet, the belief o f the district has
been that retention should occur early if it is to occur. Therefore, this element is
more aligned to the new context policies and strategies, but does carry a hint of
the traditional thinking. The school is closely aligned with new context, as it
emphasizes intervention and achievement at all three grade levels.
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sub groups. Traditional-context policies tend to have a disparate impact
on sub groups of students without concurrent changes in curriculum, instruction,
or strategies. New context policies and strategies track the impact on subgroups,
and use the information to make changes in curriculum, instruction or strategies.
Both the district and the school have mixed alignment with new context in
this area. The district does encourage schools to look at subgroups when
analyzing assessment data. They provide each school with access to a student
information system that allows schools to disaggregate data on the norm
referenced tests as well as the district tests. Student scores are also provided by
grade level, program, ethnicity, gender, and special needs. The district further
provided all schools with a workshop on how to analyze the results of the data.
Although the district and the school use assessment results to track the
progress o f subgroups, neither mentioned using the data on retained and socially
promotion students to identify any disparate impact on subgroups. Both the
district and the site were asked if they kept retention and social promotion data,
and neither kept a record o f social promotions.
Curriculum, instruction, and programs. New context policies and
strategies use standards-based curriculum and instruction, and research-based
programs. The programs and strategies are also evaluated for effectiveness.
Traditional-context policies and strategies have no clear curricular policy, use few
research-based proven programs, and do not monitor the effectiveness o f the
programs used.
178
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The district is closely aligned with new context in curriculum, instruction,
and programs. As discussed in research question one, standards-based curriculum
and instruction is an expectation throughout the organization. The district relies
heavily on a combination o f sound research and practice-proven programs and
strategies. The area that seems to be lacking is the evaluation o f those programs
and strategies on a continual basis.
The school shows a mixed alignment with new context. The school site
uses several research-based reform strategies. The site is required to evaluate the
strategies and policies each year for renewal o f the grant, and for district support.
Again, the use o f standards-based instruction throughout the school is an
expectation, but according to one teacher, “A few teachers continue to teach what
and how they have taught in the past because they say ‘it works’.” The movement
is surely towards standards-based instruction, but implementation remains mixed.
Table 11 addresses one question on the alignment o f curriculum,
instruction, and programs to standards. Teacher response does not indicate strong
agreement that all areas are aligned to standards.
Table 11
Curriculum, Instruction, and Programs:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Curriculum, Instruction, and Programs n* Average
Curriculum, instruction, materials, and expectations are
aligned to standards.
40 2.70
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
I=disagree strongly. 2=disapree somewhat 3=agree somewhat, and 4 - agree strongly).
“ Number of teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Formative assessment. Traditional policies and strategies use few
formative assessments to drive curriculum and planning, and rarely use them to
identify students needing additional support. New-context policies and strategies
use high-quality, frequent formative assessments that are linked to the standards
to drive curriculum and instruction planning. These assessments are also used to
identify students needing additional support.
The policies and strategies developed at the district level are veiy much
aligned to new context, and provide for frequent and formative assessments
throughout the year. Based on the policy, these assessments also help to identify
students who need additional support. The district assessment results are provided
to the teachers to identify areas of strength and weakness in student achievement
and to modify instruction based on the results.
As implemented, the school is somewhat aligned to new context because
formative assessments linked to standards are not uniformly implemented in all
teachers’ classes, and not always used to drive instruction. Although the
movement is definitely towards using formative assessments to drive curriculum
and instruction planning, some departments and subjects have further to go than
others.
Formative assessments are informally used at the site to identify students
who need interventions. If students are doing poorly on classroom tests or the
district-driven formative assessments, and if space is available in an intervention,
180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students who are not on the “at-risk” list can be recommended by the teacher for
intervention.
Summative assessment. New-context policies and strategies use multiple
measures linked to standards for making promotion or retention decisions.
Traditional policies and strategies use only standardized assessments or unreliable
testing instruments to make promotion or retention decisions.
The district and the school are very aligned with new-context policies in
this area. District policy, interviews, and other documentation indicate that
multiple measures, linked to standards, are used to make promotion and retention
decisions. District assessments are aligned with district standards, and each year
the district is attempting to create stronger alignment. Although the school uses
only the SAT-9 to identify students at risk o f retention, it is not the only criterion
used for retention decisions. The school uses the multiple measures given by the
district to make retention decisions.
Assessment data. Traditional policies and strategies rarely have
assessment data available at the school or classroom level, do not use the data to
make curricular and instructional decisions, and rarely disaggregate the data.
New-context policies and strategies rely on this data to make curricular and
instructional decisions, and provide disaggregated data to all levels.
The district is very aligned with new-context policies and strategies in the
use o f assessment data. As discussed previously, the district contracts with a data
company to provide assessment data to all sites, along with training on how to
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
disaggregate and use the data to inform program and instructional changes. Mike
Schmoker, a leader in the area o f results-driven change, was brought into the
district to share ways in which sites can use assessment data to improve student
achievement.
The site uses assessment data as well. The principal explains that
When we get data, the leadership team breaks down the
information and gives it to the individual departments. Once they
look at the data, they determine where their weaknesses are and
what they should focus in on. Also, I have a very bright science
teacher who did an analysis of the SAT-9 information and broke
down the data even further to indicate more specific needs. The
departments then shared that information with other teachers at the
staff meeting. It tells the quality o f teacher we have here and it
gives teachers another tool to evaluate student achievement.
The school also paid for an extra day of training with Mike Schmoker so that the
whole staff could learn how to use data.
Southern Border Middle School modified its yearly goal to focus on
Limited English Proficient students, based on the assessment data received from
the district. Using data as the basis of their decision, the school also moved away
from the lecture style instruction to a more student-centered approach, because
they were not reaching a large group of second-language students with their
current strategies.
Although some parents choose to exclude their children from taking the
SAT-9 test, the district has identified other assessments that are given throughout
the year to monitor student growth. The school also encourages their special
education and Limited English Proficient students to take the state test. Table 12
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
shows teacher agreement that ail students are included in the state and district
assessments.
Table 12
Assessment Data:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Data n* Average
Students with disabilities are included in statewide or
districtwide assessments, unless the student’s individualized
education program team (IEP team) determines that
modifications o f the assessments are necessary.
36 3.33
LEP students are included in statewide or districtwide
assessments unless there is a valid educational justification
for their exclusion. In situations in which students are
excluded from a particular statewide or district assessment,
comparable information about these students’ academic
progress must be collected.
38 3.29
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don't know.
I =disagree stronelv. 2=disagree somewhat. 3=aeree somewhat, and 4 - agree strongly).
“ Number o f teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Identification for intervention. Traditional-context policies and strategies
identify students at risk o f retention late in the school year, and late in the child’s
educational career. Students are often identified based on invalid or unreliable
measures, and parents are not notified until the end o f the school year. New
context policies and strategies identify students who need assistance as early as
possible, and notify parents to solicit their involvement. New-context policies also
identify students through the use o f frequent formative assessments and multiple
measures.
The district policy is very closely aligned with new context in identifying
students for interventions. The policy provides for the identification o f students
who need additional support by the first report card in November. The policy
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
additionally identifies the students through multiple measures, and parents are
asked to participate in developing their student’s Individualized Remediation
Plan.
As implemented, the policies and strategies have a mixed alignment with
new context. Rather than use o f multiple measures for identification, the school
identifies students based only on their SAT-9 scores. Although parents are
notified at several times throughout the school year that their child is at risk or a
retention candidate, the solicitation o f parent involvement has been minimal.
Much o f this deficiency has been the result of contract negotiations. Generally,
teachers would have much better communication with parents, but during the past
year, notification was often sent by mail rather than by personal contact.
According to Table 13, teachers believe that students are not always
identified early in their school careers, and they are only in slightly stronger
agreement that students are being identified at-risk early in the year.
Table 13
Identification for Intervention:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Identification n* Average
Students who are in danger o f being retained are 38 2.74
identified early in their school careers.
Students who are in danger o f being retained are 42 2.95
identified early in the school year.
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disaeree strongly. 2=disaeree somewhat. 3=agree somewhat and 4 = agree strongly!.
•Number of teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Interventions. Traditional-context policies and strategies use few targeted,
individualized interventions. They may also call for a variety of strategies that are
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
unclear and provide little coordination. The interventions are rarely research-
based, and are not connected to the regular curriculum. Interventions in new-
context policies and strategies are targeted and individualized for those students
who need them. They provide systematic and explicit strategies to teach skills that
are research based, and that support the high-quality regular curriculum.
The district policies and strategies are somewhat aligned to new context in
this area. They do require interventions for all students at risk o f retention.
However, they do not specify any systematic or explicit strategies for teaching the
skills in which students are deficient. The district administrator says that the
schools are asked to choose their reading programs for intervention from the
district-approved list of research-based programs. Implicit in the policy and
strategies at the district level, is the expectation that interventions will be
coordinated with standards-based, regular instruction. The district is deficient in
providing or suggesting intervention programs for retained students, however.
The school is also somewhat aligned to new context. The rating for the
alignment o f interventions is based on the programs as they ran before the
negotiation problems. Most o f the after-school interventions in the 2000-2001
school year were cancelled because o f lack o f staffing. In the 1999-2000 school
year, all programs were implemented and interventions were targeted and
individualized to student needs. The principal expected the teachers with
intervention programs to use the same instructional strategies being taught
through Ventures and being utilized in the regular classrooms.
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Title 1 Coordinator admitted that one o f the intervention programs
would “teach to the test,” but interventions typically connected to regular
classroom curriculum. The reading programs used in the intervention programs
are research based, and on the district’s recommended list. But a specific program
is not systematically used; the choice is often up to the teacher o f the intervention.
Table 14 identifies the teacher responses on questions regarding
interventions from the Teacher Questionnaire. Whether the low agreement to the
questions on interventions is because the teachers were not providing students
with intervention at the time, or because they did not believe targeted, intensive
interventions were provided, is unknown. The school does offer parent-education
classes, yet teachers were not in agreement that the parents o f identified students
were being provided with the classes.
Table 14
Interventions:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Interventions n* Average
Targeted, supplementaiy intervention strategies exist and
are uniquely combined to design the individualized
learning plans that help prevent the retention o f identified
students.
38 2.55
intensive academic support is provided to all identified
students that target key subjects such as literacy and math
as well as the students' individual learning deficiencies.
38 2.68
Comprehensive parent education classes are provided to
parents o f identified students. These classes target
student achievement, home to school articulation,
35 2.54
parenting skills, and parent participation in student's
academic progress.
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat. 3=agrec somewhat and 4 = agree strongly).
■Number o f teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Responsibility. Traditional-context policies and strategies placed the
responsibility for achievement solely on the student. New-context policies and
strategies provide for a shared responsibility for learning and achievement
between the school, student, and parent. It also includes rewards and provisions
for accountability.
The district and the school are both very aligned with new context policies
in this area. The responsibility for student achievement is shared between the
teacher and the student. The board policy indicates that “Instruction should
accommodate the various learning styles, developmental stages, and linguistic
development of individual students.” This statement holds the teachers
responsible for appropriate instruction. The policy adds that “Students shall
progress through the grade levels by demonstrating academic growth through
meeting grade-level standards o f expected achievement in language arts and
math.” This statement holds the students responsible for their learning. The
district's mission statement further identifies parents as partners in that
responsibility.
Letters sent to parents o f students at risk indicate the responsibility o f
parents in the education and progress o f their child. The letters remind the parents
also to monitor their child’s education in specific ways.
The school makes teachers responsible for providing appropriate
instruction and monitoring student progress. Parents are responsible for getting
their child to the appropriate interventions, and students are responsible for asking
187
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for the help they need. A handful o f teachers feel that the responsibility is solely
on the student or parent, but the organizational belief is that responsibility is
shared.
Students understand the shared responsibility. When asked who they
believe is the most responsible for their learning, one student responded, “My
teacher is responsible, because she teaches three of my classes, but it is my
responsibility to get good grades because it is my work.” The majority o f students
felt that they were responsible for their own learning, but they mentioned the
teacher or the principal as a partner in their learning.
Accountability. Traditional-context policies and strategies hold the student
solely accountable, whereas new context holds the school and the student to a
shared accountability. The district is very much aligned to new context, and the
school is somewhat aligned with new context in the area of accountability.
Based on the criteria for promotion within the policy, the school and the
student share accountability. The student is held accountable by having to reach
grade-level standards in order to be promoted, while schools are accountable for
providing interventions that will help students reach those standards by the end of
the year. Schools are also held accountable for the results o f the SAT-9 by the
state and district, and students are held accountable for their individual SAT-9
scores. Yet, because students are being identified as at-risk based on a test score,
and because not all teachers have aligned classroom assessments to standards,
students are not fully accountable for receiving passing grades in their classes.
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Decision-making for social promotion or retention. Decision-making in
traditional-context policies and strategies used little in the way o f formal criteria
to identify students. The decisions made were based on arbitrary criteria, and were
made by an unclear process that lacked clarity. Decision-making in new-context
policies and strategies identifies students based on multiple measures that are well
known to the student, the parent and the school community. New context policies
clearly provide for student identification, intervention, and multiple options.
The district is somewhat aligned with new context in this area. Formal
criteria and a formal process for identifying students for retention are outlined in
the district policy. The criteria are based on multiple measures, rather than on
arbitrary criteria. The actual cut-off scores for each assessment are not readily
available to parents and students, but they are clear for teachers and the school
community.
As implemented at the site, the policy and strategies are somewhat
aligned, and provide sites with a clear policy context, while allowing them to
make decisions with multiple options. These options allow for the child’s best
interest to be considered in the final decision. Because o f the onset o f negotiation
problems at the conclusion o f the 1999-2000 school year, teachers were not
participating in the Retention/Promotion Committees as outlined in the district
policy. This may explain the low agreement on a specific process being used for
decision-making. Further, Table 15 indicates that teachers do not agree that
189
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
promotion and retention decision-making are based on students' achievement
towards standards.
Table 15
Decision-Making for Social Promotion or Retention:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Decision-Making n* Average
Specific, multiple criteria are used to make a decision as
to whether to retain or promote a student.
41 3.07
A specific process is consistently used to make a decision
as to whether to retain or promote a student.
38 2.87
Promotion and retention decision-making is based on
achievement o f proficiency towards standards.
39 2.33
Note. Results exDrcssed as the averaae o f teacher resoonses made on a S-Doint scale (0
1 =disaeree stronelv. 2=disaaree somewhat 3=aeree somewhat and 4 = aaree stronalvl
= don’t know.
•Number of teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Notification. Traditional-context policies and strategies do not always call
for the notification of the child’s at-risk status, nor do they notify parents
promptly o f the reasons that they are socially promoting or retaining the child.
Notification in new-context policies provides for the earliest possible notification
o f parents with the reasons that the child is being retained or promoted.
The district is very closely aligned with new context in this area. The
district guidelines require schools to notify parents o f their child’s at risk status at
the first reporting period in November. At that meeting, parents are specifically
told which areas their child is below standard. Parent contact is continued
throughout the year, and a district-developed, mid-year letter is again sent to
parents to update them on their child’s progress. When the decision to retain or to
socially promote is made, the letter is sent out immediately to parents.
190
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The school was somewhat aligned with new context in this area. Contract
negotiations interfered with strict adherence to district policy, however. Because
the teachers did not each mentor an at-risk student during the 2000-2001 school
year, many parents were notified o f the student’s at-risk status through the mail.
But parents were notified by November, and each progress report and report card
also indicated the child’s at-risk status. By the second week in May, parents knew
whether their child would be retained. Table 16 indicates teacher agreement on
parent notification and communication.
Table 16
Parent Notification:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Notification n* Average
The policies outline procedures for notifying parents as
soon as the decision is made that their child is in danger
o f being retained. The communication with the parent is
then on-going throughout the development and
implementation o f an intervention plan.
40 3.13
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
1 ^disagree strongly. 2=disagrec some what. 3=aeree somewhaL and 4 = agree strongly).
"Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Post social promotion or retention. After social promotion or retention,
traditional-context strategies typically recycle students through the same grade
curriculum and instruction, without additional support and targeted individualized
interventions. Socially promoted students are not monitored and receive little in
the way of additional services for the following year. New-context strategies for
these students continue to provide targeted individualized interventions, while
making placement and curriculum decisions that enhance the student’s
191
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
opportunity to learn. New-context strategies also monitor socially promoted
students to provide continuous targeted interventions.
The district is somewhat aligned with new-context policies and strategies.
The district policy does call for students to be monitored after social promotion or
retention, and to be provided with continued interventions. The policy does not
specify the targeted interventions or placement for retained students, nor does it
suggest the specific, targeted interventions for socially-promoted students.
The school site has a mixed alignment between new context and
traditional context. The school struggles in the area o f providing differentiated
curriculum to retained students. The site has only one program that truly provides
a different curriculum for these students. The school does make an effort to place
the child in the classes and interventions that will help him/her achieve, and it
continues to provide interventions and monitoring for the students. Teachers are
also in agreement, however, that these students are not always provided with the
services necessary as indicated on their response to the questions in Table 17.
Table 17
Post Retention or Social Promotion:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Post Retention or Social Promotion n* Average
Alternative programs exist for all identified students to
prevent retained students from being "recycled” through
the same program and curriculum as the previous year.
38 1.89
Scheduling has been modified or altered to maximize
attendance and achievement for identified students.
38 1.71
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disagree strongly. ?=Hisapree somewhat. 3=agree somewhat and 4 = agree strongly).
•Number of teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
192
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Policy and strategy monitoring. Traditional-context policies do not
maintain accurate records o f social promotion and retention. In new-context
policies, accurate records are kept o f both social promotion and retention. The
data is then used to assist in curriculum, instruction, and school-change decisions.
The district and the school have mixed alignment in this area because they
do not keep any record o f socially promoted students. During the past two years
o f policy implementation, however, the district has required schools to provide
retention data. The Title 1 Coordinator at the school says the leadership team will
be reviewing the last two years o f data on retention and making recommendations
for school-change decisions.
Alignment with Standards-Based Reform
The final determination o f adequacy is based on the alignment of Sunny
Union School District’s policies and strategies with the elements o f standards-
based reform. The elements include standards, assessment, instruction,
curriculum, personalization, climate organization, leadership, teacher
professionalism, and accountability. Using Conceptual Framework E, each of the
elements contains a number o f characteristics that are rated individually and then
averaged to obtain a final rating. The characteristics will follow each element to
clarify exactly what the researcher is rating. Following the summary of
characteristics, data supporting the rating of alignment will be drawn from
observations, interviews, document analysis, and the Teacher Questionnaire.
193
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The rating scale is from one to five. One indicates that the district and
school policies and strategies are not aligned to standards-based reform; two
indicates they are somewhat non-aligned; three is a mixed alignment; four is
somewhat aligned; and five is fully aligned to standards-based reform. The
intended alignment focuses on the district’s intentions, whereas the implemented
alignment focuses on what is actually occurring in the school.
Researcher ratings for alignment with standards-based reform. The district
is closely aligned to standards-based reform with an overall rating o f 4.72 out o f
5. The district administrator acknowledges areas o f non-alignment in performance
standards, and the integration of curriculum across subjects and grade-Ievels. The
district continues to work on these areas.
The school is somewhat aligned with an average of 3.97 out o f 5. Areas o f
non-alignment at the site have also been identified by the administrator and
leadership team and are topics of discussion. Primary concerns at the school are
the alignment o f formative assessments to curriculum and instruction, and the
consistency o f grades and assessments. The whole-school implementation of
standards has yet to be realized. Although several departments have aligned their
curriculum to standards, performance descriptions and samples o f student work
with explanations o f the requirements to meet standards are not evidenced in all
classes.
The researcher’s ratings on the district and school’s alignment to
standards-based reform are presented in Table 18. The table provides the averages
194
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of each component, and the overall average o f the district and schools alignment
to standards-based reform.
Table 18
Alignment with Standards-based Reform:
Results from Researcher Rating
Component
Alignment
Intended
Alignment
Implemented
Standards 4.0 3.3
Assessment 5.0 3.3
Instruction 4.6 3.6
Curriculum 4.4 3.9
Personalization 5.0 4.8
Climate 5.0 4.8
Organization 5.0 4.3
Leadership 5.0 3.8
Teacher Professionalism 5.0 4.3
Accountability 4.2 3.6
Average Alignment 4.72 3.97
Note. Researcher ratings made on a 5-point scale ( I =Not
aliened. 2=Somewhat non-aligned. 3=Mixed between
aligned and non-aligned. 4=Somewhat aligned, and 5=Very
aligned)
Standards. Characteristics o f standards that are rated in this element
include the following: (a) the adoption o f rigorous standards; (b) written
standards, including performance descriptions, samples o f student work, and
explanations o f the requirements to meet the standard; (c) expectations by grade
level that are aligned with the standards; (d) exhibits o f quality student work,
along with appropriate standards and rubrics that are displayed in classrooms; (e)
student work with revisions to improve performance in evidence throughout the
school; and (f) school documents that reflect the standards.
The district is fully aligned with several o f the characteristics in this
element, but falls short in a few. Standards-based curriculum is an expectation in
195
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the district. One o f the board goals states, “Upon completion o f eighth grade,
students will have reached or surpassed State and District standards.” The district
office sponsored a standards-alignment workshop in 1999, in which Language
Arts and Math teachers completed the task o f aligning course work to the State
Content Standards. The district also brought in two leaders in the educational
field, Mike Schmoker and Doug Reeves, to discuss how to implement a
standards-based curriculum that is focused on results.
Although the district has written standards for all grade levels, they do not
include performance descriptions or explanations o f the requirements to meet the
standards. The interview with the district administrator revealed that developing
performance standards is the next priority.
The school has a mixed alignment with standards-based reform. The
school does talk to the parents about standards and teachers hand out the pamphlet
“The California Content Standards” for each grade at Open House. The
introduction o f the pamphlet states:
Dear Parent/Guardian, Well-communicated standards provide you
with the information you need to have a better understanding of
what your child is to learn in a specific grade level and a specific
subject. Your knowledge of the standards will help you frame your
questions for parent-teacher conferences and counselor
conferences; select reading and writing materials for the home; and
shape your visits to public libraries and other places o f interest.
The school mission statement also mentions standards:
The mission of Southern Border Middle School is to provide a
caring and productive learning environment where rigorous and
challenging academic standards will direct students to develop
their skills abilities to reach their greatest potential. The teachers,
196
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
administration and support staff are dedicated to providing all
students with a quality, standards based, technologically enhanced
instructional program...
Language Arts and Math teachers have also worked on aligning their course work
with state content standards in their department meetings and throughout the
1999-2000 school year. Further, all staff met in grade-level teams to review and
revise course offerings, and to align them with the state standards. The principal is
also evaluating teachers based on the standards.
The researcher witnessed student work on the walls of most classrooms.
Science standards were mapped out conceptually on the wall in one class, reading
standards were broken down pictorially on the wall in another class, and in one
class, the specific standard that students were working on that week was posted on
the bulletin board.
Teachers mentioned that adopted textbooks are aligned with state
standards, and further adoptions will continue to provide standards alignment.
One teacher commented, “Standards are a large part of instruction.” All teachers
said that they allowed and encouraged students to revise work. One teacher said,
“They need to redo work until they do it right.”
The area o f non-alignment to standards at the school became clear through
student interviews. The problem is that many o f the students don’t seem to clearly
understand what a standard is, or when they have met a standard; most students
confused standards with grades. Responses to the question, “What do they mean
by standard?” were as follows:
197
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Standards mean the grade you need to pass.
Teachers don’t tell us what the standards are; they just tell you to
do your work. They say we can pass with a D.
I don’t remember if they talked to me about standards, but I know I
have to get A’s and B’s.
I don’t know what they are. My teachers told me if I don’t make
good grades I couldn’t pass.
A thing that if you don’t meet a certain point. ..you have to start
doing a good job in school or you’ll get retained.
Making a standard means doing better. I know if I met it if I get
good grades.
Although some teachers use rubrics, and most display the standards, the lack of
performance standards may be the reason that so many students cannot
differentiate between a standard and a grade. Students are uncertain what “good
enough” looks like.
The school is continuing to align all o f their curriculum and instruction
with standards. Based on the end-of-year report for the Comprehensive School
Reform Demonstration Grant, one o f the intentions o f the site in the following
year is to analyze student-work portfolios. The staff will take samples o f student
work completed over one week. Then the external evaluator will have an
independent group compare the student work to state content standards for each
grade level, and report back to the staff how successfully they are working toward
the standards, and what areas need to be improved.
Assessment. The characteristics o f assessment in standards-based reform
are as follows: (a) both formative and summative, and aligned to standards;
(b) on-going standards-based assessment with specific feedback to students and;
(c) results o f assessments and the ongoing analysis o f student work are used to
198
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
improve student performance. The researcher rating for the intended alignment to
standards-based reform is a five out o f five.
The district continues to use assessments that align with state and district
content standards. The district intends for all school assessments to be aligned to
standards, and makes mention o f this in its guidelines for promotion and retention.
It reminds school committees that when making promotion/retention decisions
that “A majority of the student’s reading assignments and scored standards-based
assignments/tests must fall into the retention category....” The district also
provides assessment data to the schools on a continual basis. This aids the school
in setting goals and in modifying instruction.
The actual implementation o f standards-based assessment is an ongoing
process, and the school rating shows a mixed alignment. Although the school uses
summative assessments that are linked to standards, not all teachers use formative
assessments aligned with standards. Teacher comments illustrate the discrepancy
in assessments. One sixth grade teacher says, “For math, we use more traditional
ways o f knowing students are successful: grades, homework, tests. For science,
we use more authentic assessments such as portfolios.” Another teacher, when
asked how students know if their work is good enough said, “the fairly traditional
way o f passing tests and by their grades.”
Yet another teacher’s comment represents the more aligned view of
assessment, when she says,
Mini-assessments guide my instruction and help me individualize
my instruction to the specific class I am teaching. I use a 4, 3, 2, 1
199
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
rubric posted on the wall over there, and the student, one o f their
classmates, and myself assess the student’s writing. I model
exemplary work on the walls so students know what is expected.
Based on interviews, it appears that a portion o f the staff is struggling to
implement standards-based, formative assessment. The Teacher Questionnaire
also indicates that teachers are not in agreement that assessment and instruction
are aligned to standards.
The district administrator commented that “consistency in report cards and
how teachers grade” continues to be a concern. Teachers support that perception
on the Questionnaire as they somewhat disagreed that grading policies and
practices throughout the school are uniform. One teacher at the site sees the
inconsistency in grading as causing a problem. She says that overall the site has
very strong support programs, but there is always room for improvement. One
problem occurs when students test well, but get all Fs. “Although a part of this,”
she admits, “is the need to focus on intrinsic motivation, another cause is the
misalignment between the teachers’ grading and standards-based assessments.”
Although the school is not strongly unified in using formative assessment
aligned with standards, they definitely use results o f state, district, and school
assessments to improve instruction and student performance. The school receives
data on test results throughout the year. The leadership team meets to review the
data, and then the teachers meet by subject to modify goals, and make plans for
improvement in instruction.
200
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Twice during the year, the staff also met after school to look at student
writing. Each time, a different department was responsible for bringing written
work to share. Teachers were given an in-service on how to evaluate papers using
a district-developed rubric.
Table 19 indicates teacher responses to questions on assessment.
Responses do not show strong agreement that assessment is aligned to standards,
that grading policies are uniform, or that assessment is aligned to formative
assessments are based on multiple measures.
Table 19
Assessment:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Assessment n1 Average
Grading policies and practices are uniform throughout the
school.
40 2.25
Assessment is aligned to standards. 40 2.75
Assessment is aligned to instruction. Schools provide
instruction in the knowledge and skills being measured
by the test. Parents are informed about how they can help
at home and in the schools so students are well prepared.
40 2.70
Reliable measures exist that accurately measure student
progress towards district and state standards.
39 2.59
Assessment is aligned to the standards, curriculum and
instruction.
41 2.71
Frequent, formative assessments are based on multiple
measures. These assessments are used to develop and
monitor a yearly plan with clear targets and strategies that
guide student achievement o f the standards.
39 2.64
Specific feedback is consistently given to students;
assessment is ongoing throughout the year.
42 3.02
Students “self-assess” their work regularly. Self-
assessment is based on students’ understanding o f the
standards.
37 2.16
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disaeree strongly. 2=disaeree somewhat. 3=aeree somewhat and 4 = agree strongly).
•Number o f teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
201
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The last question in Table 19 shows teachers disagree that students
regularly self-assess their work based on an understanding o f the standards. This
response is indicative o f lack o f performance standards on which students are able
to self assess their work. However, teachers indicate agreement on providing
specific, ongoing feedback to students throughout the year.
Instruction. The rating o f the district's and the school's policies and
strategies being aligned with standards-based instruction was based on the
following characteristics: (a) instruction is organized around clear expectations
and performance standards, and students know what is expected of them; (b) a
variety of grouping strategies are employed for different purposes to enhance
student learning; (c) students collaborate as active learners; (d) different
instructional strategies are used to accommodate different modes of learning; and
(e) instruction is aligned to the standards. Based on these characteristics, the
district is somewhat aligned with standards-based instruction.
Board Policy states, “Instruction should accommodate the various learning
styles, developmental stages, and linguistic development o f individual students.”
The area in which the district falls short o f alignment is the absence of
performance standards.
The school also falls short o f alignment in the area o f performance
standards. However, in the other areas o f instruction they are more aligned. The
Venture’s reform strategies and workshops focus on using thinking skills and
202
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
literacy strategies to help students and teachers learn how to make a connection
between teaching, and learning based upon brain research.
Teachers use a variety of grouping strategies, and students collaborate as
active learners. In several observations, this was demonstrated. In one class, a
Venture’s Coach was in a classroom teaching a structured thinking-skills strategy
to half the class, while the teacher taught it to the other half. They used a
questioning technique to get students to think and problem-solve as a group.
Another teacher used a variety o f instructional strategies with ELD students that
included, working alone, working in groups, and moving them around the room to
interact. She then had the class read the textbook, while using the guess-and-
check technique. The homework assigned then reinforced the science concept that
was taught. One other class separated students into two groups. Half the class
worked on computer reading programs that were individualized to their reading
levels, and the other half worked with the teacher on vocabulary taken from
current events.
As a result o f implementing Venture’s strategies, many teachers are
moving away from working primarily on basic skills, and they are doing less
lecturing. The focus has shifted to a student-centered approach.
The principal says, “My expectations are that teachers are using the
instructional techniques and strategies they have learned through Ventures in their
classrooms.” However, he acknowledges that it will take more than a year for
teachers to feel comfortable with the strategies, and to use them on a daily basis in
203
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
their classrooms. He says that teachers are looking for ways to accommodate
different learning styles and that they have asked for additional support in
working with second-language students.
Table 20 indicates teacher responses to questions on instruction.
Responses do not show a strong agreement on instructional practices. Because the
questions are multi-pronged, it is difficult to distinguish the area o f disagreement.
One area o f instruction the faculty identified as a need was in working with ELD
students and providing different modes of learning for those students. This need
could be the reason for the low agreement on the last question in Table 20.
Table 20
Instruction:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Instruction n* Average
Curriculum and instruction are based on purposeful planning. Planning is
driven by results of assessment, and helps determine:
1. what to teach.
2. when to introduce skills and concepts.
3. appropriate use of instructional and assessment strategies, and techniques that
integrate tasks based on complex, real-world experiences, requiring problem
solving, exploration, research, decision making, communication, and questioning.
4. how to teach for transference and generalization.
40 2.80
Instruction includes the following components:
1. cuniculum delivery organized around clear expectations and performance
standards: students know what the expectations are;
2. dialogue among students and between students and teachers; dialogue stimulates
thinking and questioning;
3. opportunities for active, student engagement in meaningful work, and products and
performances that are reflective of the standards;
4. planned experiences to help students analyze their own metacognition and
motivation; students are taught self-regulation strategies.
39 2.79
Instruction is individualized and targeted; different modes o f learning
provide accommodations to help all students achieve the standards.
42 2.26
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
•Number of teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
204
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Curriculum. The alignment rating o f the district and school to standards-
based reform in the area o f curriculum is based on the following characteristics:
(a) course content and curriculum are aligned with the standards; (b) all students
are engaged in a thinking, meaning-centered core curriculum that is focused on
student outcomes; (c) the focus o f the curriculum is on depth over coverage;
(d) the scope and sequence integrates knowledge across subjects and grade levels,
and uses a constructivist view o f knowledge; (e) there is an integrated view o f the
disciplines; (f) there are linkages connecting the curriculum to the outside world;
(g) tasks include real-world problem solving; (h) instructional and supplementary
materials are aligned with standards. In the area o f curriculum, the district is
aligned with standards-based reform.
The district has aligned the language arts and the mathematics curricula
with the standards, and continues to align other subjects with state standards. The
district has provided support to all schools in reforming and revising the curricula
to become more aligned to state standards. Also, alignment charts and examples
o f curriculum are provided to sites to help them understand how to improve
district writing assessment and other multiple measures.
The school is somewhat aligned with standards-based reform in
curriculum. Language arts and mathematics are already aligned with standards.
Spelling books were specifically chosen because they align with state standards.
Literature books also list the standards being addressed in each lesson.
205
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Other staff worked on aligning the curriculum to State Content Standards
in the 1999-2000 school year. Teachers met in grade level teams to review and
revise course offerings and align them standards. The ELL teachers are in the
process o f aligning their curriculum to the State ELL standards, and creating a
scope and sequence that will make their program comprehensive. The hope is that
every teacher will be aware o f what students are expected to learn at each grade
level, and that such knowledge will assist students in being mainstreamed into the
regular program.
The reform strategy chosen by the school is also aligned with standards-
based curriculum, and introduces problem-based, integrated learning models to
provide “real world” collaborative experiences. Teachers were taught problem-
based and project-based learning strategies for getting students to problem-solve
and think critically.
The researcher observed several teachers focusing on depth over coverage.
One teacher commented that it is more important for the students to understand
the concept than to stay on schedule. “With ELL students,” she said, “kids can
read a passage, answer the questions, and still not understand the concept behind
it.” The teacher created lessons and homework activities to ensure students
understood the concept of motion.
Although the school is aligned in most of the characteristics, evidence to
show an integrated view of curriculum was not extensive. Further, a few o f the
teachers interviewed alluded to the diverse rates of integration in the various
206
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
departments. “Some departments are further along in implementing standards-
based curriculum than others,” said one teacher.
Personalization. The characteristics o f this element are as follows:
(a) student support is an intrinsic part o f the school; (b) students receive
individual attention; (c) school is part of a network o f community services; and
(d) support is provided for language-minority students. The district and the school
are aligned in the area o f personalization.
Students feel that they receive individual attention as evidenced in
interviews. Students stated that several teachers extended the invitation to come
into their classes before or after school for individual help. The school offers a
variety o f activities for students, which include: Club Live and Little Leos,
Discovery Club, Video Productions, Yearbook/Newspaper, Computer Club,
Folklorico Dance, Sports, Cheerleading, Art Classes, Band, Navy League Cadet
Corps, and the Good News Club. Two full-time counselors, a bilingual clerk, and
a bilingual school psychologist provide additional student support. A Student
Success Team and a Learning Support Center, maintained by a guidance
technician also support students academically.
Teachers believe that student support is an intrinsic part o f the school. One
teacher said, “We are a great team and we are in this because we feel like we can
make a difference with these kids. We feel these kids deserve that. That is why we
choose to stay in the ‘inner city’ school when we could make more money
elsewhere. Most of the teachers see this as a calling.”
207
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The school is also a part o f a network o f Community Services. The school
provides counseling for parents and students through three community
organizations, offers family services to support at-risk students, and provides
parenting classes through two community agencies. They have a partnership with
the Boys and Girls Club, and the University o f California. The school also teamed
up with Healthy Start Community Services and the city police department to
identify and work with parents o f students with excessive absences.
Support for language-minority students is also strong at the site. Parenting
classes are also available in Spanish, and most school documentation is translated
into Spanish. Teachers communicate with parents o f language-minority students
through the bilingual department. Teachers fill out a form with the information
they need to relay to parents, and a bilingual aid calls the parent, and reports the
feedback to the teacher. Tutorial interventions are also set up to specifically meet
the needs o f language-minority students.
The principal provided evidence of the support for language minority
students in his interview when he explained that
We are a center school for newcomers. Once they are here and
once they see what is going on, when the time comes to go back to
their own school, they want to stay here. We work with the basics
and acclimate the kids. We talk about language and it is really
intense and the teachers are wonderful teachers. And their
reputation is out. When they make their transition into ELD 1 and
2 and are allowed to go back to their home schools, they don’t
want to go back. Some have and came back to this school after the
trimester because it’s not the same.
208
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Climate. The alignment rating of the climate with standards-based reform
is based on the following characteristics: (a) recognition and celebration are given
to students and staff for achievements and great effort towards meeting
performance standards; (b) the learning environment is safe, orderly, caring and
respectful; (c) a school-wide discipline program focused on high expectations
consistent with standards, is adopted and enforced; (d) parental involvement is
evident, and parents are welcome participants in student learning; and
(e) celebrations of student achievement are built into the school program and
calendar. Based on these characteristics, the district and school are aligned with
standards-based reform.
School documentation demonstrates a positive climate committed to
student success and safety. The school’s mission statement says, “The teachers,
administration, and support staff are dedicated to providing all students with a
quality, standards-based, technologically enhanced instructional program in a
safe, secure, and friendly environment, that celebrates diversity and emphasizes
high standards of behavior.” In addressing discipline, the School Accountability
Report Card says, “The staff at Southern Border is committed to providing a
friendly and industrious learning environment where students can take
responsibility for their own behavior and can achieve to their greatest potential.”
The school agenda also lets parents and students know that “A system of
positive reinforcement, along with a progressive discipline program, is the
foundation upon which an orderly, productive, and safe school environment is
209
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
developed and maintained.” All parents and students receive the standards of
behavior in the agenda, and are required to read and sign it. The standards for
behavior are written in both Spanish and English.
The principal has high expectations for students, and encourages them as
he walks around the campus. He teaches them to develop the confidence to look
people in the eye when greeting them. He says, “As you walk around, you gotta
love it. Kids will come up to you. They shake your hand; they’ll look at you.
Because every time I talk to them, I shake their hand and say, "Look into the
eyes!’ ” He goes on to say that “People like what is going on here. They like the
temperament. It starts from the office. They greet you, and they’re friendly.
Before they [students] were leaving our school and now I have to shut the doors
because we are at 1119 students. It is because kids like being here and the word is
out!”
Observations also confirmed the care and respect that teachers showed
students. Teachers joked with students at lunchtime, and kept their classrooms
open for students to eat with them. The researcher overheard one teacher
reprimanding a student in the hallway in such a way as to hold her accountable
while maintaining a positive relationship. Displays and banners revealed high
expectations. A colorful “Read and Succeed” poster was displayed in the quad
area, and billboards and display cases contained messages o f encouragement to go
to college, and announced parent/student information meetings for colleges.
210
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Parents are encouraged to be involved in their child’s education. The
school has a Family Math night, and parenting classes in English and Spanish
with babysitting available. Other parent involvement includes, School Site
Council, Parent Teacher Student Association, Bilingual Advisory Committee,
District Advisory Council, and the Parent Center. One ESL teachers describes the
way in which they try to make parents partners in the student’s learning, thus:
We had a parent meeting at the beginning o f the year with a great
turnout. We explained to the parents that low expectations are
harmful to their child’s future education and success, and their
child needs to grow academically to become successful. We
explained to the parents and students that school is something that
happens within them, not to them.
Recognition and celebration are also evident for staff and students.
Teachers award each other recognition for successes on a duplicate award. One
copy is put in a box in the faculty room, and the other is given to the teacher. The
principal pulls out one o f the recognitions per month at the staff meeting to
celebrate that success. Students are also recognized. Honor-roll celebrations,
parties, awards assemblies, verbal acknowledgement, and coupon books are given
to students for outstanding achievement, effort, and improvement. Once a month,
each teacher selects one student for outstanding academics and citizenship. The
parents of-lhe chosen students are invited to a breakfast provided by the school to
turnout is incredible, and the parents enjoy sharing in the recognition o f the
child’s success.
to award them a certificate. The principal says thaH he
211
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 21 supports the view that teachers feel the learning environment is
safe and orderly. Teachers are in agreement that the environment reflects a sense
o f caring, trust, and respect between students and faculty. Observation supported
teacher responses as students and teachers were seen interacting with respect and
consideration.
Table 21
Climate:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Climate n* Average
The learning environment is safe and orderly. The
environment reflects a sense o f caring, trust and respect
between students as well as adults and students.
42 3.14
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disagrce strongly. 2=disagree somewhat. 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
“ Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Organization. The characteristics o f a standards-based organization
include: (a) time organized to facilitate conversation, activity, and research for
both staff and students based on standards; (b) student outcomes drive school
organization and culture; (c) there is shared decision-making, emphasizing teacher
professionalism, focused on student outcomes; (d) the school staff has more
control over resources, and the district office supports the instruction and planning
at the site; (e) clusters, houses, or tribes are used to create meaningful
opportunities for teacher-student relationships to grow and flourish and to
promote collaboration; and (f) the school develops, uses, and monitors a yearly
plan with clear targets and strategies to guide student achievement o f the
212
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
standards. The district is aligned with standards on this component, while the
school is somewhat aligned.
The area o f non-alignment for the school is in the area o f clusters, houses,
or tribes. The district is insistent that the school implement one o f these into the
school. They have even offered to send in a consultant to help develop a plan, and
to problem-solve roadblocks. The school has tried to develop a way implement to
houses, but they have not yet been able to solve the logistical problem o f
mainstreaming the ESL students.
Staff development time definitely focuses on assessment results and
changing instruction to address student achievement. Student outcomes drive the
organization. For example, when ELL students were scoring poorly, teachers
requested a focus group on English Language Learner students and their special
instructional needs. The site also uses and monitors a yearly plan with clear
targets for the district, and for the renewal of their grant. The principal is hopeful
that they can find a way to obtain more collaborative time at the school. He feels
that they don’t have enough time for conversation and planning.
Leadership. The alignment o f leadership to standards-based reform is
based on the following characteristics: (a) a leadership team meets regularly,
using effective problem-solving and decision-making strategies to successfully
improve student performance; (b) decisions about classroom scheduling are
directly related to student learning; (c) continuity exists among assignments,
assessments, reports to parents, and grades; (d) the principal focuses on student
213
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
work, performance, and achievement during Sequent observations and follow-up
feedback conferences with staff; and (e) staff evaluation includes anecdotal
evidence about staff impact on student performance. The intent o f this component
is aligned with standards-based reform, while the implementation mixed.
Areas of alignment at the school include a leadership team that meets
monthly and has functioned as an advisoiy group for the implementation of the
grant. They look at data and break it down for departments, and they problem-
solve concerns that arise. The team also evaluates programs and strategies at the
school.
The principal focuses the faculty upon performance and standards.
Observation revealed the principal primarily walking the campus and visiting
classes. He explains that he changed the evaluation tool to include standards and
Ventures strategies:
I changed the evaluation tool by developing a relationship with the
teachers and they trust that I am supporting them. But I am also
keeper of the direction we are going. I moved away from the
clinical model o f evaluation. The first two years here, I wouldn’t
have touched the evaluation.
Now, teachers are evaluated, at least informally, based on the following areas:
instructional techniques and strategies, assessment o f student progress, Venture’s
strategies, interpersonal skills and duties, and learning environment.
To ensure a focus on improving student performance, the principal has
also assigned the assistant principals to take the math and English departments
and attend their meetings, monitor them, and promote the principal’s direction. “I
214
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
want to make sure they talk about assessment, so we are all speaking the same
language.” Overall, the leadership at the school is appreciated and respected. One
teacher confirms, “The leadership at this school is incredible; I have never seen an
administrator work so hard. I think that feeling is shared overall.”
The area of mixed alignment is in the continuity among grades and
assessments, and the scheduling decisions being unrelated to student learning.
Grades are not always reflective o f students meeting the standards. To address
this concern, the Leadership Team is looking at several standards-based report
cards, and the principal is very eager to adopt this type o f reporting. The teachers
are also not confident that the scheduling of at-risk students is always made in the
interest of the student.
Teacher professionalism. The alignment o f teacher professionalism to
standards-based reform is determined based on the following characteristics: (a)
the environment of the school emphasizes teacher professionalism; (b) school
structures are designed to allow teachers to target services to students and to
support intensive learning; and (c) professional development is ongoing as part o f
the school culture and is designed to ensure that teachers are equipped to teach to
high standards. Further characteristics focus on teachers (d) using time wisely to
collaborate, grow professionally, and implement change, (e) being involved in
redesigning school structure to support more intensive learning by using processes
for school assessment that evaluate opportunities to learn, (f) being effective
coaches, (g) using teaching strategies that meet diverse needs o f students in the
215
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school, (h) having a deep understanding o f the standards, and using planned
instructional strategies, (i) using performance-based and authentic assessment to
improve teaching and to drive instruction, not as grade transition gateways. The
district is aligned and the school is somewhat aligned to standards-based reform in
this area.
The district encourages staff development based on standards, and
provides opportunities for teachers to attend training sessions. Staff-development
activities at the school have included Venture’s training with coaching, AB 1086
Reading Training, No Excuses Literacy for 6th grade teachers, and Doug Reeves’
seminar. The schools end-of-year grant report states:
Two cohorts o f 46 staff members attended seven full day sessions
of staff development with specific techniques to be implemented
immediately in the classroom as well as set a foundation in theory
and philosophy. Guided practice was included in each session to
ensure each teacher understood the concept clearly. Teachers were
given numerous opportunities to converse in groups (usually by
department) about each Venture topic presented.
Additionally, the staff participated in 21 days o f peer coaching by the Ventures’
trainer. The Ventures’ model encourages teachers to be effective coaches for each
other, but for now, the Ventures’ coach is providing that service.
The principal says that “The cohesiveness of the staff help us move
forward. They are good people, and it is because of them we have been
successful; I am just pushing.” Even in the midst o f tension with contract
problems, the teachers and the administration at the school remain professional
and focused on the students.
216
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teachers at the school are also involved in a wide variety o f professional
development activities. In addition to Ventures, faculty have been involved in
technology training, reading in content areas, helping at-risk students, English
Learner techniques, strategies to teach math, summer academy, and AVID
training. Table 22 indicates that teachers agree that professional development is
planned and implemented.
Table 22
Teacher Professionalism:
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Teacher Professionalism n* Average
On-going, research-based, and focused professional
development is planned and implemented.
40 3.13
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
I=disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat. 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
*Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Accountability. Accountability in standards-based reform has (a) an
incentive system with rewards and consequences that motivate students to reach
the performance standards, (b) an incentive system for school faculty and other
district employees that rewards those who contribute to improved student
performance, and provides consequences for those who fail to do so. Other
characteristics include: (c) a resource-allocation system linked to accountability
for results; (d) an organizational structure designed to enable everyone to know
what he or she is responsible for, and with responsibilities distributed in a way
that corresponds to accountabilities; and (e) a shared accountability among the
217
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school, the teacher, and the student. The district and the school are only somewhat
aligned in this area.
The incentive system for the students includes placement on the Honor
Roll, Parent/Student Breakfasts, and awards assemblies. Incentives for teachers
and the school include money from the state, recognition by the principal, and
“atta boys” from fellow teachers.
Teachers are held accountable on their evaluations for using standards and
the techniques and skills that they learn through Ventures. Some teachers feel that
the district holds them unjustly accountable for student achievement without the
support to succeed. Overall, accountability is not clearly articulated by the district
or school, but each contains significant characteristics o f this component. Again,
lack of performance standards at the district and school calls into question student
accountability on classroom assignments and grades.
Summary of Research Question Three Data
The data from research question three indicates the districts policies and
strategies on social promotion and retention are adequate. The strong alignment to
statutory elements in the state policy provides the first measure of adequacy.
The district is also aligned with new context policies and strategies while
the school is somewhat aligned. Areas o f mixed-alignment for the school include
beliefs, identification o f at risk students, post retention, and policy and strategy
monitoring. Overall, the policies and strategies o f the district and school are
adequate based on the alignment.
218
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Researcher ratings, based on evidence, also indicate the adequacy o f the
policies and strategies as they closely align to standards-based reform. The district
is more aligned, while the school is somewhat aligned. The areas o f non-
alignment for the district and school include the strategies for post-retention, lack
o f performance standards, and policy and strategy monitoring. Further, the school
also lacks the full implementation o f standards based formative assessments,
instruction, and curriculum.
The district and school policies and strategies are clearly aligned with state
policy. The district policy and guidelines are judged adequate, based on the strong
alignment to state statutory requirements.
The lack o f performance standards in the district and school directly
impact several elements rated. The alignment rating o f elements o f standards-
based reform, including standards, assessment, instruction, and leadership are all
affected by lack o f performance standards. Standards do not include performance
descriptions or an explanation o f the requirements to meet a standard; assessments
tend to use grades to define “how good is good enough?” instead o f performance
descriptions. Instruction cannot be organized around clear expectations when
performance standards are absent; and leadership cannot ensure continuity among
assignments and grades when performance standards are absent.
Weaknesses at the school and district level include policy and strategy
monitoring and post-retention programs. Neither the district nor the school keeps
statistics on socially promoted students. Although retention rates are documented,
219
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the lack of data on socially promoted students could mask a disparate impact on
sub-groups of students. Failing to document socially promoted students may
cause the evaluation of interventions to overlook needed changes. Further, it is
impossible to determine the impact o f the policies and strategies on social
promotion if data is not kept.
Post-retention programs and strategies are weak. Because the preceding
district policy did not subscribe to retention, the programs for retained students in
the second year o f implementation are weak. Teachers and administrators admit to
the fact that alternative programs for these students are dismal or nonexistent, and
scheduling is not always modified to provide for a differentiated curriculum. Both
the district and school listed this area as a topic o f review.
Research Question Four:
Change Process in the Design and Implementation o f Policies and Strategies
Framework for Research Question Four
The fourth research question asks, “How was the change process carried
out in the design and implementation o f the district and school’s social promotion
and retention policies and strategies?” Sub-questions include, “What factors have
contributed to or hindered the process o f change?” and, “What did participants
perceive would improve social promotion and retention policies, strategies, and
practices in the district and school?”
Conceptual Framework B, Description o f the Change Process, guides the
presentation of findings for this question. Literature on the change process
220
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
describes several elements necessary to successfully and fully implement a reform
into any organization (Fullan, 1993; Hubberman & Miles, 1984; McLaughlin &
Marsh, 1978). The framework addresses change elements that focus on
(a) leadership, (b) motivation and resistance to change, (c) teacher professional
development, (d) relationship o f the change to student achievement, and (e)
commitment. The Teacher Questionnaire was the primary instrument for
gathering data on teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, and feelings about how the
policies and strategies were implemented in the district and the school. Forty-two
teachers completed the Questionnaire, and their responses are revealing o f the
extent to which the district and the school have implemented the change elements.
Leadership
The leadership at the board, district, and school level is functionally and
symbolically important. The leadership must demonstrate a commitment to the
new-context social promotion and retention policies and strategies, as well as to
standards-based reform. The district leadership, as well as the governing board,
demonstrated their commitment to the retention and promotion policies and
strategies by revising and adopting the policy. The district made it clear that they
expected the policy and guidelines to be followed at all sites. The district
administrator provided a representative from each site with an in-service on the
promotion and retention notebook, including timelines and criteria.
The school principal further supported the implementation o f the policies
at the site. He used teacher input and participation to create a variety o f
221
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interventions for students at risk o f retention. One teacher interviewed highly
commended the district and site leadership as being primarily instrumental in
“pushing” standards forward.
The teachers responded to questions o f leadership in Table 23. They were
in mixed agreement on the support o f the district in assisting sites in the
development o f the policies and strategies, and they did not agree that suitable
attention was paid to details in the implementation. They did agree, however, that
school leadership support was a key element in implementing the policies and
strategies at the site. Whether low ratings for district-office support were affected
by a strained relationship between teachers and the district is unknown.
Table 23
Change Process: Leadership
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Leadership n* Average
District office support was a key component in assisting
sites in development and/or implementation o f the new
social promotion and retention policies and strategies.
30 2.57
Suitable attention to details was paid during
implementation.
26 2.54
School leadership support was a key element in assisting
this site in the implementation o f the new social
promotion and retention policies and strategies.
26 3.38
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
I=disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat 3=agree somewhat and 4 = agree strongly).
*Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Motivation and Resistance to Change
This change element maintains that the initial motivation o f teachers and
others is important in the change process, but resistance cannot be allowed to stop
the new-context policies and strategies, and standards-based reforms from being
222
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
implemented. The district attempted to involve teachers and community members
in the policy design through the participation of representatives from different
groups. The committee included community people, teachers from primary and
middle schools, counselors, and representatives from the teachers’ organization.
Yet, based on teacher responses in Table 24, the perception is that teachers
were not highly involved in the design process, nor does the community strongly
support the policies and strategies in the opinion o f the teachers. This response in
itself indicates a lack o f community involvement in the design process.
Although the teachers indicate that a need for developing policies and
strategies to address social promotion and retention is undeniable, their
commitment appears questionable. Based on the response that the teachers
“somewhat disagree” that all teachers are committed to the success o f the policies
and strategies, it appears that initial motivation for implementation may have been
low.
Table 24
Change Process: Motivation and Resistance
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Motivation and Resistance n* Average
Teacher participation throughout the design process was high. 36 2.53
Teacher participation was at a high level throughout the
implementation process.
37 2.68
All teachers are committed to the success o f the social
promotion and retention policies and strategies.
36 2.36
Community support for the policies and strategies is strong. 25 1.80
The need for the policies and strategies for social promotion
and retention was great
34 3.03
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat t= ayree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
•Number of teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
223
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher Professional Development
Professional development is crucial to changing teacher practices.
Teachers need to be given the time and support to transfer the new knowledge and
skills they are learning into their classrooms. The amount o f social and technical
support that teachers receive during the implementation stage can mean the
difference between failure and success (Joyce & Showers, 1998).
Research-based, ongoing professional development. Fully implementing
new context social promotion and retention policies and strategies and standards-
based reform requires a great deal o f ongoing professional development that
values the knowledge and expertise o f the school’s teachers, and seeks to improve
them.
The district encourages staff development based on standards and provides
opportunities for teachers to attend training sessions. The district provided
Southern Border Middle School assistance in aligning their curriculum with state
standards by bringing in Dr. Doug Reeves and Mike Schmoker. The district
continues to provide support to the school through the Education Services
department. Teacher-training programs have been presented on bilingual-
education strategies, literacy intervention, and mathematics standards based
instruction.
224
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The staff at the school participated in development activities that are based
on research, and that utilize Joyce and Shower’s (1980) training modules. The
end-of-year grant report points out that:
Two cohorts o f 46 staff members attended seven full day sessions
o f staff development with specific techniques to be implemented
immediately in the classroom as well as set a foundation in theory
and philosophy. Guided practice was included in each session to
ensure each teacher understood the concept clearly. Teachers were
given numerous opportunities to converse in groups (usually by
department) about each Venture topic presented.
Additionally, the staff participated in 21 days o f peer coaching by the Ventures’
trainer. The Ventures’ model also encourages and trains teachers to be effective
coaches o f each other.
Teachers at the school are also involved in a wide variety o f professional
development activities. In addition to Ventures, staff have been involved in
technology training, AB 1086 Reading Training, No Excuses Literacy for 6th
grade teachers, reading in content areas, helping at-risk students, English Learner
techniques, strategies to teach math, summer academy, and Avid training.
Teachers agree that professional development is planned and implemented, as
evidenced in Table 25.
Results from the Teacher Questionnaire on professional development also
indicate that the teachers are either not in agreement, or they don’t know whether
their colleagues are developing masteiy o f the procedures and specifics o f the
programs. Teachers again express a lack o f involvement in the change and focus
of development to support the policies and strategies, despite district policy that
225
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
allows the schools to develop their own specific programs to meet the needs of
their students. Disagreement also exists on the provision of classroom training in
ongoing and timely manner.
Table 25
Change Process: Teacher Professional Development
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Professional Development n* Average
On-going, research-based, and focused professional
development is planned and implemented.
40 3.13
Classroom training and specific assistance was (is) ongoing and
conducted in a timely manner.
33 2.30
Teachers are involved in the change, focus, and development o f
suitable materials to support the policies and strategies.
29 2.69
Teachers are developing mastery o f the procedures and specifics
o f the program.
25 2.16
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat 3=agree somewhat and 4 = agree strongly).
“ Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Teachers’ stages o f concern. In order to plan effective professional-
development activities for staff, research shows that it is important to know at
which stage o f concern the majority of the teachers reside (Hall & Hord, 1987).
Stages o f concern focus on how an individual thinks and feels about a reform, and
they are powerful tool for facilitating the change process. The levels o f concern
addressed in the Questionnaire include: Stage 1-Awareness, Stage 2-Personal,
Stage 3-Management, and Stage 4-Consequence. Based on their level o f concern,
different strategies or trainings should be implemented to address the specific
needs o f faculty.
As is evident on the Questionnaire, most teachers are beyond the
awareness and personal stage, and are more concerned with the broader
226
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
consequence stage. The first two questions in Table 26 indicate Stage 2 concerns,
and show that teachers are fairly unconcerned about the personal issues. The
teachers become a bit more concerned in Stage 3, as they look at the management
issue o f revising their classroom and curriculum to facilitate the new policies and
strategies. Stage 4 concerns address the impact that the policies and strategies
have on students. The last question in Table 26 addresses a Stage 4 concern, and
teachers here are in stronger agreement. The focus in this stage is on the relevance
and effect o f the innovation on student achievement.
Table 26
Change Process: Teachers’ Stages o f Concern
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Teachers’ Stages o f Concern n* Average
I am mostly concerned with how the policies and strategies will
affect me (Stage 2).
38 2.55
I am concerned about conflict between my interests and
responsibilities in relation to the social promotion and retention
policies and strategies (Stage 2).
39 2.59
I am concerned about revising my classroom structure and/or
curriculum to facilitate the social promotion and retention policies
and strategies (Stage 3).
37 2.78
I am concerned whether or not the social promotion and retention
strategies are helping students (Stage 4).
39 3.36
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disaeree strongly. 2=disaeree somewhat 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
•Number o f teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Teachers’ level o f awareness. Another important aspect in planning
professional development to support change is to determine the teachers’ level of
awareness in regards to the innovation or reform. Table 27 shows teacher
responses to questions on level o f awareness. Responses indicate that teachers are
fairly unaware of the policy and strategy specifics, and only moderately interested
227
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in modifying the strategies based on student needs. However, the teachers are not
apathetic toward the reform, and they strongly agree that the policies and
strategies do affect their classroom.
Table 27
Change Process: Teachers’ Level of Awareness
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Teachers’ Awareness n* Average
I know a great deal about the policies and strategies specifics. 36 2.31
The policies and strategies do not affect my classroom, and as a
result, I have not concerned my self with the details or specifics.
38 1.66
I would like to modify our use o f the social promotion and
retention policies and strategies based on the experiences o f our
students.
33 2.76
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
*Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Cross-role teaming. Developing cross-role teams is necessary to share
expertise across a teaching staff, and to ensure that students who need it will
receive the necessary additional support. Table 28 indicates that teacher interest in
cross-role teams seems to be low. This response minors the finding at the school,
which suggests that despite district encouragement for sites to utilize tribes,
teams, or houses, the school has not yet implemented the teaming approach.
Table 28
Change Process: Interest in Cross-role Teaming
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Teaming n* Average
I would like to help other faculty members use the policies and
strategies.
37 2.51
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disagree strongly. 9=disagree somewhat. 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
•Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
228
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Connection of Standards Based Reform and Promotion and Retention Policies and
Strategies to Student Achievement
New-context social promotion and retention policies and strategies and
standards-based reform need to be seen as integral to the school and to student
achievement. Because o f the organizational emphasis on results and using data for
evaluating student achievement, the focus on student performance is strong. As
district and state tests become more aligned with state standards, the
implementation o f standards-based instruction at the school is seen as integral to
student achievement.
The characteristics o f standards based instruction being implemented at
the site include a variety o f grouping strategies, students collaborating as active
learners, and differentiated instructional strategies. These strategies are
encouraged and required o f the teachers by the principal on informal and formal
evaluations.
The movement to student-centered, higher-level, and critical-thinking
instructional approaches focused on standards, results not only from district
pressure, but is also the school’s chosen reform model. School reform, Ventures,
provides coaching, support services, training, and time for teachers to understand
and analyze the relationship between student achievement and the reform. The
instructional practices at the school connect to the intervention programs. As
teachers see the success o f the reforms, their practices change, thus affecting their
instruction in intervention programs, as well as in regular programs.
229
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Commitment
Fidelity to the content and process of reform goals is critical. The content
o f the reform matters as much as the process, and fidelity to the goals of the new-
context social promotion policies and strategies, and to the goals of standards-
based reform is required. In developing the policies and regulations for social
promotion and retention, the committee made certain to include all of the
statutory elements from the state. The district administrator also spoke of using
the policies o f other districts also for guidance and ideas in creating policy.
Fidelity was not maintained at the school. The program implementation
did not mirror the design, for the school did not identify students at risk based on
multiple measures, and it did not adhere to some o f the guidelines on monitoring
and parent contact. Although the content was well thought out and included a
focus on standards-based reform, the process was not successfully engaging as
reported by the teachers.
The responses in Table 29 indicate that teachers either did not know about
the process, or they were not engaged. Nine teachers did not know that the district
policy change was driven by the state, whereas the other thirty-three teachers
agreed it was driven by state policy changes. When asked whether new social-
promotion policies and strategies were based on adapting already developed,
outside programs to the district, twenty-seven teachers responded with “I don’t
know.” The remaining respondents averaged little agreement. Finally, the teachers
230
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
disagreed upon whether the design o f the program was far-reaching and effective
in stimulating teacher interest and engagement.
Table 29
Change Process:
Teacher and Community Involvement
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Indicators o f Involvement n* Average
The district’s social promotion/retention initiative was
driven by the state policy changes.
33 3.58
The new social promotion and retention policies and
strategies were based on adapting already developed,
outside programs to the district.
15 2.20
The design o f the program was far-reaching and effective
in stimulating teacher interest and engagement.
35 1.91
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
1 =disapree strongly. 2=disaeree somewhat 3=agree somewhat and 4 = agree strongly).
‘Number o f teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Commitment to original purpose. The policies and strategies must stay
true to their original purpose and not become downsized. The original purpose
was to ensure early intervention and identification o f students at risk of retention.
In spite o f the feeling that teachers and community were not involved in the
design o f the policies and strategies, the reform must maintain its purpose. No
data at the district or school level indicated a tendency to down-size the policies
and strategies. In fact, both levels spoke of using data in the following years to
improve the strategies and programs.
Commitment to the process. The new-context social promotion and
retention policies and strategies and standards-based reform need to be viewed as
a process, not as an event, and they require the commitment o f a number o f years
to be fully implemented. The district and the school have each affirmed their
231
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
commitment to the reform through words and actions. At several points within the
interview, the district administrator spoke o f the ongoing process of refining the
criteria and strategies for retention. District guidelines also emphasize the ongoing
alignment o f standards based assessments and retention criteria.
The interview with the principal and the Title 1 Coordinator revealed the
school’s intent to look at the successes and failures o f the strategies implemented
at the site, in order to improve their effectiveness. The school will also continue to
use assessment data, based on standards, to determine student needs and develop
appropriate interventions. Several teachers mentioned that the contract problems
affected the effective use o f interventions in the 2000-2001 school year, and they
are eager to re-establish the interventions in the following year.
Teacher interest in and inquiry into the policies and strategies is also
indicative o f an organizational commitment to the process o f implementation. It is
not enough to be exposed to the new policies and strategies; teachers must
become skilled in implementing them into the culture o f the school. Inquiry is
necessary for building greater change capacity (Fullan, 1993). The Teacher
Questionnaire addresses four questions on teacher interest and inquiry. Table 30
indicates that teachers are inquisitive about how they are to incorporate the
policies and strategies into their classroom, and what the student attitudes are
toward the policy. Although there is slightly less agreement here teachers also
express an interest in knowing more about the new policies and strategies.
232
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 30
Change Process: Commitment
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Indicators o f Commitment n* Average
1 have some or many ideas about something related to the
policies and strategies that would allow them to work
even better.
36 2.47
I am very interested in knowing students’ attitudes
toward the social promotion and retention policies and
strategies.
38 2.97
I would like to know more about the policies and
strategies.
38 2.71
I would like to know how my teaching strategies are
supposed to change as I incorporate the social promotion
and retention policies and strategies within my classroom.
40 3.03
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat. 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
■Number o f teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Summary o f Research Question Four Data
A review of the data for research question four shows that the change
process in the district was supported and enforced by school leadership. This
leadership provided the pressure and support for implementing interventions. The
teachers did not feel engaged in the process, and initial teacher motivation in the
process was low. Although the process was not at first engaging, a commitment to
the process of implementation is evidenced by the district and site leadership,
while slightly less by the teachers.
Data supports the ongoing professional development o f reforms associated
with the social promotion and retention policies and strategies; however, the
teachers do not agree on the urgency or on their involvement in the activities.
Student achievement is the focus of the standards-based reform and policies and
233
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
strategies, and the district and school are both committed to take the time needed
to successfully implement the reform.
School leadership support was significant in the change process. The
Teacher Questionnaire and interviews indicated a respect and a feeling o f support
for the site principal. A mutual respect valuing the professionalism o f each other
was evident at the school, even in the midst o f negotiation tensions. The principal
maintained a focus on interventions for students in ways that did not violate the
teacher workday, and he continued to demonstrate his commitment to the ongoing
process o f implementation.
The relationship of standards-based reform and social promotion and
retention policies and strategies is integral to the school. Not only has the district
required the implementation of standards, but also the majority o f teachers at the
school have bought into the reform. The buy-in stems from the staff choosing the
school-reform model. The Ventures’ model supports a commitment to the
integration o f standards into a strong instructional program designed to increase
student achievement.
Negotiation problems hindered the change process. Not only did
negotiation problems affect the implementation o f interventions in the 2000-2001
school year, but they also greatly affected teacher feelings and perceptions. The
Teacher Questionnaire indicates a strong disagreement on most questions of
district support and leadership, despite data that contradicts those perceptions.
234
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher responses reflect a strong negativity to the district office, which has
certainly affected the complete acceptance o f district policies and strategies.
Research Question Five: Impact o f Policies and Strategies
Framework for Research Question Five
The fifth research question asks, “What is the impact o f social promotion
and retention on the district and school policies, strategies, and practices to date?”
Researcher ratings based on the observations, interviews, and data gathered from
the district and school documents the results o f this research question. The
Teacher Questionnaire is also used to identify the teachers’ perception o f the
impact o f social promotion and retention policies on different areas. Conceptual
Framework A identifies the areas of impact that the researcher will rate. The areas
include the following: (a) impact on organizational beliefs, priorities, and
practices; (b) impact on instructional practices; (c) impact on student beliefs,
motivation, and learning; (d) impact on parent and community support; (e) impact
o f student achievement; and (f) impact o f social promotion, retention, and dropout
rates.
The difficulty in rating the impact o f the policies and strategies is that
other factors may contribute to the findings. The implementation of policies and
strategies for promotion and retention coincide with the implementation of
standards-based reform within the district and schools. Therefore, when
identifying the impact o f the policies and strategies, it is impossible to isolate
them from the impact o f other reform strategies within the organization.
235
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Researchers Rating on the Impact o f the Design and the Impact of the Findings
Researcher ratings on the impact of the social promotion and retention
policies and strategies are shown in Table 31. The intended impact of the design
rated higher than the impact as implemented. Areas that were highly impacted by
the design o f the policy include organizational beliefs, priorities, and practices.
Areas o f lower impact from the design are social promotion, retention, and
dropout rates. Areas highly impacted by the implementation o f the policies and
strategies are student achievement and organizational practices. Following the
table, the areas of impact are listed followed by data to support the rating.
Table 31
Impact o f Pupil Promotion and Retention
Policies and Strategies:
Results from Researcher Rating Form
Component
Impact
Intended
(Design)
Impact
Implemented
(Findings)
Organizational beliefs
Organizational priorities
5
5
4
4
Organizational practices 5 5
Instructional practices 5 4
Student beliefs,
motivation, and learning
3 3
Parent and community
support
3 4
Student achievement 5 5
Social promotion and
retention rates
3 3
Dropout rates 1 2
Note. Researcher ratings made on a 5-Doint scale (1 =Not
considered at all. 2=Considered somewhat not important.
3=Considered somewhat important. 4=Considered important.
and 5=Considered very important)
236
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Impact on Organizational Beliefs. Priorities, and Practices
Organizational beliefs. The retention and promotion strategies and policies
intend to impact the organizational beliefs by making it clear that the district
strongly supports standards-based assessments, and early intervention as an
alternative to retention. Proof o f this is seen in the board policy, district-developed
timeline, and administrative regulations. The district also believes strongly that
holding teachers and students accountable for interventions will increase student
achievement and prevent retention.
The impact on beliefs at the school includes an acceptance that standards
are an expectation, and that teachers have aligned their curriculum with the
standards. The school is also using standards-based assessments, and has included
standards-based instruction and assessment in their reform efforts. According to
Table 32, the belief at the school appears to be mixed as to whether they feel that
early interventions have increased student achievement. The teachers are in
agreement that the new policies and strategies have prevented the practice o f
social promotion, thereby holding students accountable for their learning.
Teachers are also agreed that the school and the district hold them accountable for
student achievement. However, the teachers do not agree on the belief that all
students can meet the standards, or that there is a shared sense of responsibility
for student achievement among the school, the teacher, the parent, and the
student
237
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 32
Impact: Organizational Beliefs
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Beliefs n* Average
The school’s policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have reduced the rate o f
social promotion.
25 3.08
The school’s policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have increased student
performance.
39 2.31
All students can meet the standards. 37 2.19
There is a shared sense o f responsibility for student
achievement between the school, the teacher, the
parent and the student.
39 2.28
The school holds teachers accountable for student
achievement
40 3.33
The district holds the school accountable for student
achievement.
40 3.63
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a S-point scale (0 = don’t know.
1 ^disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat. 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
•Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Organizational priorities. The organizational priorities follow directly
from the beliefs, and the intended impact o f the policies and strategies has been to
create a stronger alignment between the standards, instruction, and the
assessments used as retention criteria. District documentation states that “Each
year, as district teachers further align the instructional program to state standards,
criteria for retention are being increased.” The commitment to continue standards-
based reform is evident from district documentation, the district website, the
interviews with administrators, and the Teacher Questionnaire.
The school’s priority is also to continue aligning its curriculum and
instruction with the standards. The site has been successful in this alignment, with
the impetus of the Ventures’ reform model and the district-supported workshops.
238
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Yet, it has further to go in the alignment o f assessment with standards, as grades
are not always reflective o f the students’ knowledge o f standards. Teachers, the
district administrator, and the principal have all acknowledged that a closer
alignment is needed between grades, standards, and assessments. District
performance standards will aid in this alignment, as well as the Ventures’ staff
development for the school. The site acknowledges that this is a work in progress.
Organizational practices. The beliefs and priorities within the social
promotion and retention policies and strategies have impacted the organizational
practices. Two intended impacts are evident and include: (a) the use o f data to
identify students and areas o f instructional improvement, and (b) the use of
targeted interventions in the district. The district administrator explains the benefit
o f the practices as follows:
I believe this policy may not be more beneficial for kids who are
retained, but it is making teachers more aware. In analyzing data,
we used to always report averages. We don’t report averages
anymore. We look at what percentage o f students is not meeting
the criteria. Our data analysis is all individual analysis. My view is
that what is helping us is the identification o f those students at risk.
The outcome o f the policy has been more individualized
interventions as we look at the individual needs o f students, and
more involvement o f parents in the process.
The impact o f the policies and strategies on organizational practices at the
school is directly aligned with the intended result. The school has been using
assessment data to identify instructional strategies for reaching the at-risk
students. For example, through the use o f assessment data, staff identified second-
language learners as a large population o f at-risk students and they have requested
239
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
support from the Ventures staff in finding research-based strategies to work with
those students. They also added to their grant agreement the goal o f improving the
achievement o f second-language learners. Teacher and principal interviews, as
well as school documentation prove that data is consistently used to identify
progress, growth, and improvement opportunities for students.
The school also introduced targeted interventions that were not in effect
before the policy was implemented at the district level. They are attempting to
provide individualized interventions based on their students’ needs. The Title 1
Coordinator says,
In looking at school reform, the school is identifying at-risk
student behaviors that prevent maximum academic and/or social
success and developing selected strategies to decrease those
behaviors. The school then developed a menu o f before/after
school activities sponsored by the school and or community groups
to focus on student safety, academic achievement, and/or positive
social interaction.
The school’s practices following the new policy definitely changed to a more
proactive approach for identifying and monitoring at-risk students. The school’s
practices for intervention also became more formalized and provided for a range
o f student needs.
Teachers are somewhat in agreement about the impact of the new policies
and strategies on school practices. Teacher responses to the impact on practices in
Table 33 indicate that teachers agree that the district policies have impacted the
school’s policies, and that the policies are aligned. They also agree that the school
has implemented early interventions; however, here, the agreement is not as
240
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
strong that the school has clear criteria for identifying acceptable levels of student
performance.
Table 33
Impact: Organizational Practices
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Impact on Practices n* Average
The district’s policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention have had an impact on the school’s policies.
36 325
The district and school policies and strategies are aligned. 23 3.09
The school has clear criteria for identifying acceptable levels of
student performance.
36 2.72
The school has implemented early interventions for students
performing below acceptable levels.
38 3.03
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
l=disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat 3=agree somewhat and 4 = agree strongly).
“ Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Impact on Instructional Practices
The intended impact was for schools to improve the alignment of
instruction with standards-based curriculum and assessments, so that grades
would reflect the student’s understanding o f the standards. The evidence of this
intention is found in interviews and documentation at the district level.
The school considers this impact important, as evidenced by interviews,
staff actions, and training. The school received staff development in the area of
standards, and Ventures is also working with the staff to help them align
instruction to standards, as well as giving them training on instructional strategies.
Within Ventures’ training, the staff analyzed SAT-9 data to understand how a
student’s individual achievement is tied to the instructional program. They
241
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
concluded that low standardized scores reflected the need for a different approach
to presenting information to students.
In order to identify new instructional strategies, continuing staff
involvement by the district and Ventures focused on ways to get students engaged
in higher-level thinking. The faculty is also using specific strategies to lower the
affective filters that prevent students from engaging in meaningful learning. Staff
is learning sheltered strategies and problem-based learning because they have
proven effective in working with ELL students.
The school has certainly begun the process of alignment, but not all
teachers are actively involved, and not all classroom assessments and instruction
truly reflect the standards, as became evident from interviews with teachers and
the Title 1 Coordinator. Table 34 addresses two questions regarding the impact of
social-promotion policies and strategies on instructional practice Most teachers
responded that they are using teaching strategies that support standards-based
curriculum, and most agree that they have changed their curriculum to meet the
standards.
Table 34
Impact: Instructional Practices
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Impact on Instructional Practices n1 Average
Effective teaching strategies are used to support
standards-based curriculum.
40 3.08
My curriculum has changed to meet the requirement o f
teaching based on standards.
39 3.15
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
[^disagree stronplv. ?=Hi«aipree somewhat. 3=agreg somewhat and 4 = agree stronglvl.
•Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
242
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Impact on Student Beliefs. Motivation, and Learning
The district’s intended impact on student beliefs, motivation, and learning
was not clear. The district administrator did mention that motivation and a
student’s self-confidence were negatively impacted by retention; therefore,
implicit in the policy was the need to prevent the damage retention incurred.
The impact at the school on student beliefs, motivation, and learning has
been mixed. According to the principal, the students are starting to see that the
school is serious about student achievement, as they see their fellow students
being retained. Student interviews indicate that most students are very concerned
about being retained. One retained student says, “This year I am trying more
harder not to get retained. My friends tease me because I am still in the 7th grade
this year.” A socially promoted student said he thinks that he is doing better this
year because “Two o f my friends were retained and that really woke me up.”
However, motivation still remains a problem. The policies and strategies
have been unable to reach all students and get them caught up to grade-level
standards.
Many students mention that extrinsic incentives would motivate them to learn.
One student said, “If teachers had rewards, I would probably be more motivated.”
And another student added, “I would try my hardest for a free skateboard or
something I really want.” Yet, a previously retained, socially promoted student
said, “I haven’t found anything that would motivate me to go to school.”
243
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In an interview, the principal also observed that getting students motivated
to learn, and to find their inner drive, continues to be a goal. Although the policies
and strategies at the school have impacted student motivation with the fear of
retention, they have not had a great impact on motivating students to learn. Table
35 supports this conclusion, as the teachers are not in agreement that the new
policies and strategies have increased student motivation. Moreover, thirteen
teachers responded with a “don’t know” to the question.
Table 35
Impact: Student Beliefs, Motivation, and Learning
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Motivation n* Average
The school’s policies and strategies for social promotion
and retention have increased student motivation.
29 2.17
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 - don’t know.
I =disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhat 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
"Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Impact on Parent and Community Support
The impact o f the policies and strategies that was noted by the district
administrator was greater parent involvement. District-developed letters and
forms explicitly indicate parental responsibility, and call for cooperation in the
development o f intervention plans. No evidence was found of the intended impact
on community support.
The implementation of the new policies and strategies on parent and
community support has been thwarted by contract-negotiation problems at the
school. Parental involvement and communication typically require teacher time
244
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
outside the contracted day. The 2000-2001 school year has seen much less
parental involvement than the 1999-2000 year. Parental support in the preceding
year included the following: the principal visiting parents of at-risk students and
encouraging them to become involved in the education o f their child; the Student
Success Team calling meetings with many o f the parents o f at-risk students to
discuss ways to help the child; and parents being more informed about their
child’s specific deficiencies (rather than just a grade on a report card).
The school policies and strategies, in combination with the reform effort,
have made an impact on community support. To support student learning and to
extend the learning day, the school has renewed existing partnerships with
business mentors, including 4H, Lions Club, and the Boys and Girls Club
Programs. Many o f the teachers were participating with community volunteers to
provide tutoring and homework clubs after school. However, gaining greater
parental and community support continues to be a school goal for the coming
year. Table 36 indicates teacher response to one question on the impact o f the
policies and strategies on parent support. Teachers do not yet agree that a sense of
shared responsibility for student achievement is occurring.
Table 36
Impact: Community and Parent Support
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Parent Support n* Average
There is a shared sense o f responsibility for student achievement
between the school, the teacher, the parent and the student.
39 2.28
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = con’t know.
l=disagree strongly. 2=disagree somewhaL 3=agree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
•Number of teachers (out of 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
245
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Impact on Student Achievement
This impact focuses on increased student performance on multiple
measures o f achievement. The intended impact of the district policies and
strategies is to improve student achievement on the SAT-9, district assessments,
and standards-based assignments and tests.
The impact at the school has been improved performance on multiple
measures. It is important to note that the retention and promotion policies and
strategies have been implemented simultaneously with standards-based
instruction and the Ventures reform model. Therefore, multiple factors may have
led to the improvement in student achievement. Southern Border Middle School
had been the lowest performing school in Sunny Union District for many years.
Its low scores were compounded by discipline problems, truancy, and frequent
absences.
SAT-9 achievement. The school stated in its end-of-the-year grant report,
“The impact o f the reform model in coordination with the intervention strategies
showed results in the API.” The school did so well that Governor Gray Davis sent
the school a letter o f congratulations upon their achieving the statewide target for
academic achievement. Only 12 percent o f the state’s schools met or exceeded the
target, and this school was ranked first in the state on improvement in math scores
at the 7th grade level. Table 37 shows the API rankings and growth targets for the
1999 and 2000 school years. The school exceeded its target o f 592 by 22 points.
246
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The table also indicates that despite it’s ranking in the 40th percentile of schools, it
ranks in the top percentile o f like-schools.
Table 37
Academic Performance Index
School Report
Southern Border
Middle School
1999 2000
API
581 614
Statewide Rank
4 4
Similar Schools’
Rank
10 10
Growth Target
1 1 9
API Target
592 623
Not only did the school improve overall, but also all subgroups improved
beyond the target growth. Table 38 indicates the numerically significant groups at
the Southern Border Middle School and their corresponding API scores.
Table 38
Academic Performance Index Growth for
Numerically Significant Subgroups
Numerically Significant
Groups
1999
API Score
2000
API Target
2000
Subgroup Score
2000
API Growth
Hispanic or Latino 541 550 564 23
White not Hispanic 622 631 654 32
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
565 574 596 31
SAT-9 scores indicate that the growth in total Reading and Math was also
significant for all grades and subjects. Table 39 indicates the growth o f 6th , 7th ,
and 8th graders in national percentiles.
247
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 39
National Percentile Growth in SAT-9 Scores
Over Three Years
Grade
Reading
97-98
Reading
99-00
Math
97-98
Math
99-00
6
24 37 29 41
7
22 31 29 53
8
29 42 38 56
Growth
12% 18%
The school attributes this progress to “the focus placed on State Content
Standards and extensive intervention programs for the at-risk students.”
The school has also attempted to increase the number of students scoring
at or above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9. Table 40 indicates steady growth in
that group over the past three years.
Table 40
Percent o f Students Scoring at or Above the 50th Percentile
Based on SAT-9 Results
Reading 97-98 98-99 99-00 Growth
6m
22 31 34 12%
ytll
23 28 27 4%
5
00
30 31 38 8%
Math
6 th
25 40 37 12%
•yltl
23 43 52 29%
S
00
36 49 58 22%
Language
6m
27 39 37 10%
*jUl
33 45 40 7%
00
5
36 40 40 4%
Overall, Spring 2000 SAT-9 test scores show that the school is no longer the
lowest scoring school in the district.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
District assessments. The school administers the Stanford Diagnostic
Reading test in October and again in March. This test measures the areas o f
vocabulary, comprehension, and scanning. The post results showed improvement
at all grade levels. Students who were participating in sheltered instruction and
English Language Learners also showed growth over the three months.
In the area o f Math, the school uses two tests recommended by the district.
The Brigance and the District’s Basic Skills Test are both used to measure student
growth throughout the year. The Basic Skills Test is given three times during the
year, and the Brigance is given twice. Again, the growth shown in Table 41
minors the improvement in the area o f Math as seen on the SAT-9 results.
Table 41
Improvement in School-Wide Math Assessments
In the 1999-2000 School Year
Test/Grade
Pre-Test Post-Test Improvement
B rigance/6U l 3.6 4.7 17.30%
B asic Skills/71 1 1 61.7 81.5 29.70%
B asic Skills/81 1 1 53.8 76.1 31.20%
B rigance/7m & 8th 5.6 6.4 18.50%
The district writing results also showed improvement in students’ ability
to reach proficiency. In the 1999-2000 school year, 31% of 6th graders, 41% o f 7th
graders, and 48% o f 8th graders were proficient in writing. This demonstrates a
growth of 17% over the preceding years.
Associated factors affecting achievement. Although tardies increased in
the first year o f implementation, truancies, suspensions, and referrals decreased.
Suspension and referral rates were reduced by approximately 30 percent.
249
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher perception o f the impact o f the social promotion and retention
policies and strategies indicates a slight disagreement that they have impacted
student performance. Again, it is important to note that thirteen teachers answered
the question in Table 42 with a response o f “don’t know.”
Table 42
Impact: Student Achievement
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Student Achievement n* Average
The school’s policies and strategies for social promotion
and retention have increased student performance.
29 2.31
Note. Results expressed as the average of teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don't know.
'^ disagree strongly. 2=disaeree somewhat. 3=agrec somewhat and 4 = agree stronelvl.
•Number o f teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
Impact on Social Promotion. Retention, and Dropout Rates
Social promotion rate. The impact on social promotion rates was
considered somewhat unimportant at both the district and the school level. The
district did not even want the numbers o f socially promoted students reported
from the sites. The district administrator felt that those numbers would not be
beneficial, because there were too many different reasons a Retention/Promotion
Committee might consider it better to promote than to retain a student. The school
did not formally keep track o f socially promoted students, although they did
express an interest in looking at the reasons that students were being socially
promoted, in order to identify ways to create intrinsic motivation in those
students.
250
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The counselors and the Title 1 Coordinator kept informal numbers on social
promotion in the preceding years. These numbers do show the social-promotion
rate as declining the year interventions were implemented. In the 1998-1999
school year, 72 students were socially promoted, but in the 1999-2000 school year
only 33 students were socially promoted. Teachers support this perception of
improvement on the Teacher Questionnaire as they agree that the school’s
policies and strategies have reduced the rate o f social promotion.
Retention rate. A realistic intended impact was not the decrease in
retention rates, for retention was not practiced in the district. The intent, rather,
was that the policies and strategies would reduce the number o f students who
were retention candidates and who would ultimately be retained. With the first
year o f implementation showing that the district had 114 retentions, the goal for
future years will be fewer than 114 retentions.
At the school, the impact on retention (although the number of retained
students rose) was to provide interventions so that the number o f students on the
“at risk o f retention” list would be minimal at the end of the year. Through the
implementation of interventions at the school, the retention rate was significantly
lowered. The Title 1 Coordinator acknowledged this impact by stating that
Retention students were identified and student profiles were
developed with baseline data. Students were monitored every six
weeks throughout the year. A spreadsheet system was used to
collect the data for all 132 students who were at risk o f retention.
By May the list had been significantly reduced as a result o f the
many types o f interventions. The final retention list was reduced to
only 12 out o f 10S6 total student population.
251
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Previous to the 1999-2000 school year, retention rates were not formally
recorded. The principal does recollect that two 8th grade students were retained in
both the 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 school year. Those four retentions were the
result o f parental requests, and were not mandated by the school.
Once the retention policy was implemented in the 1999-2000 school year,
more retention resulted, and the school and district formally collected data. Seven
6th grade students were retained, four o f whom returned to the school. Four 7th
grade students were retained, two o f whom returned to the school. And five 8th
grade students were retained, none o f whom returned to the school.
Dropout rate. Based on interviews, review o f documents, and observation,
the researcher found that the intended impact on the dropout rate was not given
much consideration. This may be because it is an elementary district. The impact
as implemented is difficult to determine. Also, the monitoring o f dropouts is
unreliable as reported by the district. According to the School Accountability
Report Card, a student is considered a dropout when he/she leaves Southern
Border Middle School, and his/her cumulative record is never requested.
The school believes that the documented number of dropouts may not be
accurate because o f the school’s high transience rate of 33 percent. Whether this
would cause under-reporting or over-reporting was not stated. The principal did
say, “The reason for it [high transience rate] is we have apartment houses, very
low income, and low socioeconomic. When they [families] stabilize themselves,
they pick up and move out.” The number o f dropouts at Southern Border Middle
252
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School as reported by the district was six in 1997-98, eleven in 1998-99, and six
in 1999-2000.
Table 43 indicates teacher responses to questions on the impact o f the
policies and strategies on social promotion, retention, and dropout rates. The
responses support the researchers rating in each area. The teachers agree that the
schools policies and strategies reduced social promotion. They disagree that they
have reduced retention, and strongly disagree they have reduced the dropout rate.
It is important to note that many teachers responded with a 0 or “I don’t know” to
the three questions. Teachers may believe it is too early to determine the impact
o f the intervention programs on the dropout and retention rate. Their “don’t
know” answers may also indicate a lack o f communication between the district
and school on the results o f the policy in the first year o f implementation. Further,
the data collected on dropout rates is questionable. Forty-two teachers returned a
questionnaire, and n represents the number o f teachers who responded with a 1 to
4.
Table 43
Impact: Social Promotion, Retention, and Dropout Rates
Results from Teacher Questionnaire
Retention, Social Promotion, and Dropout Rates n* Average
The school’s policies and strategies for social promotion
and retention have reduced the rate o f retention.
26 2.19
The school’s policies and strategies for social promotion
and retention have reduced the rate social promotion.
25 3.08
The school’s policies and strategies for social promotion
and retention have reduced the dropout rate.
17 1.65
Note. Results expressed as the average o f teacher responses made on a 5-point scale (0 = don’t know.
I=disapree strongly. ?.=disapree somewhat. 3=apree somewhat, and 4 = agree strongly).
•Number of teachers (out o f 42) who responded with one through four ratings. Don’t know responses
were omitted.
253
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary o f Research Question Five Data
Researcher ratings based on data indicate that the policies and strategies
on social promotion and retention have impacted multiple areas in the district and
school. They had an exceptionally strong impact on organizational practices, and
they increased student performance at the school. The areas in which the policies
and strategies appear to have a weaker impact include social promotion and
dropout rates.
The policies and strategies greatly affected organizational practices. The
social promotion policies and strategies created a clear process for the
identification and intervention o f students at risk o f retention. The practice o f the
organization previously had been to look only at percentages of at risk students.
The new policy caused the school to look at individual students at risk, identify
their needs, and provide interventions to address those deficiencies.
Data reveals increased student performance. Increased student
performance was evident on multiple measures in the 1999-2000 school year. But
the implementation of social promotion and retention policies coincided with the
implementation o f other reforms at the school. Although the Teacher
Questionnaire did not indicate a strong agreement by teachers that the promotion
and retention policies and strategies were solely responsible for increased student
achievement, other data indicated improvement. Yet, upon the review o f SAT-9
assessment data, the staff expressed the view that student progress was a result of
254
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the focus on state-content standards and extensive intervention programs for at-
risk students.
Summary of Data Analysis and Findings
After analysis o f the data for each research question, several findings
became evident. A summary of the key findings for each question follows.
Research Question One
Research question one identified the design of the social promotion and
retention policies and strategies at the district level. The key findings concerning
the design follow.
The design o f the policies and strategies is thorough and well thought out.
The district design is specific, and includes clear multiple-assessment criteria,
timelines, notifications, monitoring documents, and committee requirements for
making final retention decisions. The design also enhances the standards-based
reform already occurring within the district. This is done through the use of
standards-based assessments for retention criteria, and the continued alignment of
assignments and instruction with standards.
The design o f the policy avoided implementation problems through the
use of a multi-year implementation plan. Although teachers may have felt that the
criteria for retention was too low the first year, phasing in higher criteria provided
for three important conditions. First, students at risk of retention would be given
the time to receive interventions before retention. Second, the teachers would
have more time to align their instructional program with state standards, thus
255
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
making standards-based assessments valid criteria for retention decisions. And
finally, phasing in higher criteria avoided the excessive-failure dilemma that other
districts were facing in the first year o f implementation. With high criteria, many
districts were unable to handle the number o f retained students, and were forced
to socially promote them in spite o f the criteria.
The design process was top-down and did not engage teachers and the
community. Although the district was thorough in its dissemination o f the new
policy, teachers did not feel involved in the design. The committee representatives
constituted the only involvement o f teachers and the community in the process.
Based on teacher responses on the questionnaire and interviews, teachers, as a
whole, did not feel that they had much input in the design of the policy.
Research Question Two
The data from the second research question describes the policies and
strategies for social promotion and retention as they are practiced at the school.
The data is also used to evaluate the extent to which the policies and strategies
enhance other district- and school-reform elements.
Negotiation problems between the district and the teachers’ union severely
impacted intervention programs. The first year o f implementation saw the use of
multiple intervention programs at the school. With teachers adhering to a strict
interpretation of the “workday,” intervention programs were not formally staffed
in the second year of implementation. Teachers were discouraged by colleagues
from working after-school hours.
256
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Although the problem did not seem to affect the relationship o f teachers to
administration at the school level, it certainly affected the ability o f administration
to ensure that students were provided with appropriate interventions. Some
teachers continued to provide “low-key” after-school tutoring, and one ELL
intervention program continued to be staffed. Primarily, any intervention offered
to students in the second year o f implementation had to be included in the
teacher’s contracted workday. Additionally, parent contact was limited, as many
parents did not get home from work until after the teacher work day, and most
teachers dropped the voluntary duty of being mentors for at-risk students.
The school does not use multiple criteria in identifying students at risk of
retention. Although the district provides multiple-assessment data to the site for
purposes o f identification, the school uses solely the SAT-9 scores o f students to
create the original list o f at-risk students. This causes problems at the school, for
some students do not enter the district with SAT-9 scores, and some parents waive
the test for their children. Teachers are further concerned that the needs of
students who score above the cut-off on the SAT-9, but continue to fail their
academic courses are not being addressed. Greater alignment is needed between
grades and SAT-9 scores to ensure student accountability.
Social promotion and retention strategies strongly coordinate to other
school reform efforts. The coordination o f the district initiated standards-based
reform, and the Ventures reform model chosen by the school enhance the
instruction offered to all students, thereby reducing the number o f at risk students.
257
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The two reforms emphasize the use o f assessment data to identify
individuals and groups o f students at risk. The reforms focus the staff on
identifying instructional strategies to meet the needs of at-risk students, and using
higher-level thinking to engage students in learning. Aligning instruction,
curriculum, and assessments with the standards is a component o f both reforms
that intends to create a stronger alignment between teacher grades and the
standards-based assessments used as retention criteria. Without the training
received through the implementation o f the reforms, the new policies and
strategies would not be as effective.
Research Question Three
Research question three evaluates the adequacy of the policies and
strategies for promotion and retention based on their alignment with the following
areas: state policy requirements, new-context policies and strategies, and
standards-based reform.
The district and school policies and strategies are clearly aliened with state
policy. The district policy and guidelines are judged adequate, based on the strong
alignment with state statutory requirements.
The lack o f performance standards in the district and school impact
adequacy ratines. The alignment rating o f standards-based reform elements
including standards, assessment, instruction, and leadership are all affected by
lack o f performance standards. The present standards do not include performance
descriptions or an explanation o f the requirements to meet a standard; assessments
258
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tend to use grades to define “how good is good enough?” instead o f performance
descriptions. Instruction cannot be organized around clear expectations when
performance standards are absent; nor can leadership ensure continuity among
assignments and grades when performance standards are absent.
Weaknesses at the school and district level include policy and strategy
monitoring and post-retention proerams. Neither the district nor the school keeps
statistics on socially promoted students. Although retention rates are documented,
the lack of data on socially promoted students could mask a disparate impact on
sub groups o f students. Failing to document socially promoted students may also
cause the evaluation o f interventions to overlook needed changes. Further, it is
impossible to determine the impact o f the new policies and strategies on social
promotion if data is not kept.
Post-retention programs and strategies are weak. Because the previous
district policy did not subscribe to retention, the programs for retained students in
the second year o f implementation are weak. Teachers and administrators admit to
the fact that alternative programs for these students are inadequate o r nonexistent,
and that scheduling is not always modified to provide for a differentiated
curriculum. Both the district and the school identified this as an area for
improvement.
Research Question Four
The fourth research question used the responses from the Teacher
Questionnaire to identify the way in which the change process was carried out.
259
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The data provided insight into the factors that contributed to and hindered the
process o f change.
School leadership support was significant in the change process. The
Teacher Questionnaire and interviews indicated a respect and feeling of support
from the site principal. A mutual respect valuing the professionalism of educators
was evident at the school even in the midst of negotiation tensions. The principal
maintained a focus on interventions for students in ways that would not violate
the teacher workday, and he continued to demonstrate his commitment to the
ongoing process o f implementation.
The relationship o f standards-based reform and social promotion and
retention policies and strategies is integral to the school. Not only has the district
required the implementation of standards, but also the majority o f teachers at the
school have bought into the reform. The buy-in stems from the staff choosing the
school-reform model. The Ventures’ model supports a commitment to the
integration o f standards into a strong instructional program designed to increase
student achievement.
Negotiation problems hindered the change process. Not only did
negotiation problems affect the implementation o f interventions in the 2000-2001
school year, but they also greatly affected teacher feelings and perceptions. The
Teacher Questionnaire indicates a strong disagreement on most questions of
district support and leadership, despite data that contradicts those perceptions.
260
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Teacher responses reflect a strong negativity to the district office, which has
certainly affected the complete acceptance o f district policies and strategies.
Research Question Five
Research question five rates the impact o f the social promotion and
retention policies and strategies on multiple areas in the organization.
The new policies and strategies greatly affected organizational practices.
The social-promotion policies and strategies created a clear process for the
identification and intervention of students at risk o f retention. The practice o f the
organization previously had been to look at percentages o f at-risk students. The
new policy caused the school to look at individual students at risk, identify their
needs, and provide interventions to address those deficiencies.
Data reveals increased student performance. Increased student
performance was evident on multiple measures in the 1999-2000 school year. But
the implementation o f social promotion and retention policies coincided with the
implementation of other reforms at the school. Although the Teacher
Questionnaire did not indicate a strong agreement by teachers that the promotion
and retention policies and strategies were solely responsible for increased student
achievement, other data indicated improvement. Yet, upon the review o f SAT-9
assessment data, the staff expressed the view that student progress was a result of
the focus on state-content standards and extensive intervention programs for at-
risk students.
261
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Discussion o f Findings
Through the analysis o f the findings from research questions one through
five, several themes evolved. Three recurring themes o f particular mention are as
follows:
1. The district design o f the policies and strategies addressing social
promotion is more adequate than its implementation.
2. Social promotion and retention strategies, other reforms, and the culture
o f the school impacted student achievement.
3. The change process at the district and school was aided and hindered by
various factors.
Adequacy of Design and Implementation
The district design for new social promotion and retention policies and
strategies contains most o f the design elements necessary for a policy that aligns
with state statutory elements, new-context policy elements, and standards-based
reform elements. The strongest elements include standards-based alignment, clear
criteria for retention, early notification and identification o f at-risk students, and
targeted interventions for those students.
The district policy supports the research that calls for multiple measures.
In the district guidelines, specific scores on multiple assessments are identified for
at-risk and retention-consideration categories. Guidelines further allow for
additional criteria that may identify students in need o f interventions. Using
multiple measures eliminates the equity problem that surfaces when certain
262
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
groups perform below average on standardized tests (Betts, Reuben & Danenburg,
2000).
However, evidence shows that the school is not implementing the new
policy as it was designed. The school is not identifying students at risk of
retention by using multiple criteria. Although the district provides data on
multiple assessments to the site, the school uses SAT-9 results as the only
identification measure. As Roderick (1995) and Darling-Hammond (1994) warn,
using a norm-referenced test to identify students at risk of retention is a dangerous
practice. Basing identification on the SAT-9 alone does not reveal what students
have mastered, but only how they rank against each other.
Although the district's design o f identifying students based on multiple
measures is adequate, the district may have lost sight of the difficult reality of
identifying 1,200 students based on multiple tests. The district has identified
specific cut-off scores for a variety o f standards-based district and state tests.
Schools are supposed to take all of these test scores into consideration when
identifying students who are in need of interventions. Several concerns arise when
the school attempts to identify students based on district guidelines.
First, it is easier for a school to look at only one test score in identifying
students, because it requires only one decision. When it looks at multiple tests,
some type o f mathematical equation must be developed to determine the students
“overall” at-risk status. For example, if a student’s SAT-9 score indicate that the
student should be placed in the “consideration for retention” category, yet his
263
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
district assessments show higher achievement, how does the school combine the
scores to determine if the student truly is in need of interventions?
Just as graduate schools develop a calculation for student admission based
on a combined Graduate Records Exam score and a grade-point average, the
school must also determine a calculation. The school’s calculation, however, must
take into consideration many more than two scores. Southern Border Middle
School is fortunate to have a full-time Title 1 Coordinator to identify and monitor
at-risk students, but even she would have difficulty identifying those students
from the 1,200 students within the first month o f school.
This leads to the second concern in the school’s identification o f students.
Because the Title 1 Coordinator is responsible for developing the initial list o f at-
risk students, the decision is removed from the teachers who know the students
best. Teachers, then, expressed the concern that students receiving failing grades
in core classes are not on the retention-candidate list, and, therefore, are not
receiving formal interventions. Some students score just above the cut-off on the
SAT-9 and are not put on the initial list, yet, they are clearly in need o f early
interventions. And because the formal intervention resources are limited, the
teachers need to find other methods o f providing help for these students.
Third, the district guidelines call for additional identification criteria to be
founded on “math and language arts skills, based on scored, standards-based
assignments and tests.” Yet, evidence indicates that not all teachers have aligned
instruction to standards, nor class assessments with standards. Students also
264
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lacked an understanding of what constitutes “reaching standard,” confusing it
with getting a certain grade. In classes where teachers are using standards-based
assessment, this may not be such a great concern. But if assignments and tests are
not aligned with standards, using them as additional criteria for identification does
not follow the intention o f the district design. Unless class work and assignments
are also truly aligned with standards, basing identification on one test score fails
to hold students accountable for class work and assignments.
The school’s intervention programs and strategies show a strong
alignment in many areas of new-context policies and standards-based reform. The
interventions included a variety o f programs, classes, and supports to meet the
needs of identified students. But, if the site is not identifying all students at risk,
the development o f programs and strategies may be ignoring additional student
needs.
The implications for the school and district are clear. The school policies
and strategies will be more successful if they implement the policy as it was
designed. Teachers must continue to align instruction with standards in order to
hold students accountable for class work and assignments. The school should
consider finding a way to involve more teachers in identifying at-risk students,
and provide additional interventions for students who are identified later in the
year. The findings suggest that the district identify ways to support schools in
creating a process or method o f identifying students based on multiple measures.
The district also needs to evaluate the implementation o f the new policies and
265
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
strategies to ensure fidelity to the design, and to evaluate the cause o f any
misalignment.
Impact on Student Achievement
Student achievement at Southern Border Middle School increased
markedly since the district and school policies on promotion and retention were
implemented. SAT-9 scores improved, the school’s API score exceeded
expectations, and district assessments indicated growth, while associated
measures o f achievement, including truancies, suspensions, and referrals, dropped
in the same years. The new policy on social promotion and retention coincided
with the recent arrival o f a new principal and the implementation o f other reforms.
These factors combined to contribute to the growth in student achievement at the
school.
Reform efforts. At the district and school level, standards-based reform is
a priority. This reform effort focuses on the improvement o f overall instruction,
which is identified by many researchers as the best intervention available
(Darling-Hammond, 1998; Oakes, 2000; Slavin, 1996). The district established
standards aligned with state content standards, has required standards-based
instruction, and has provided training and workshops on developing standards-
based lessons, as well as sponsoring professional development activities to
support the reform.
The criteria for retention and promotion are tied to standards-based
assessments. The new policy further requires teachers to use standards-based
266
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assignments and tests as indicators o f progress. As shown by the Teacher
Questionnaire and in interviews, the commitment and expectation to implement
the reform is clearly understood by the teachers.
The main area o f shortcoming in the standards-based reform at the district
and school is the development o f performance standards. Tucker and Codding
(1998) explain that clear performance standards must be matched to actual student
work so that students and teachers have a clear picture o f what it takes to meet the
standard. Without the students and community clearly understanding “How good
is good enough?” students will continue to struggle in differentiating between a
letter grade and a standard.
Based on student and teacher interviews, “good enough” is understood in
terms o f teacher-assigned letter grades, and students are not in the habit of self-
assessing work based on their understanding o f standards. Observations at the
school revealed uncertainty about the requirements to meet the standards, and also
revealed a lack of exhibits of quality student work, with appropriate rubrics, on
display in the classrooms.
Other reform efforts at the school have been crucial in the identification of
at-risk groups, standards implementation, overall instructional improvement, and
student achievement. The school’s chosen reform model, Ventures, supports the
standards-based reform initiated by the district. The Federal reform program, Title
1, supports the Ventures’ reform. Because this school was identified as an
underperforming school, Title 1 provided the necessary funding to make the
267
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
changes necessary to affect student achievement positively. Title 1 has also aided
in the movement toward increased accountability at the school. As Gratz (2000)
explains, Title 1 holds schools accountable for outputs or achievement, rather than
for educational inputs.
The Venture’s reform model supports the continued alignment o f
curriculum, instruction, and assessment with the standards, while adding the vital
component o f increasing teacher capacity to improve their instruction. This model
provides the technical support needed to sustain a reform. Ventures focuses on
problem-based learning and provides teachers with the skills and knowledge
necessary to teach students by this method. The reform provides the staff with
necessary training days that include time for lesson planning, collaboration, and
review o f student work. Additionally, the model provides coaching days in which
Ventures’ staff provide in-class visitations, monitoring, and coaching on the
implementation o f training elements.
Ventures focuses the school on improving overall instruction through a
variety o f research-based strategies, whereas Title 1 holds the school accountable
for the achievement of LEP and educationally disadvantaged students. The
professional development provided by these reforms is structured and is focused
on effective teaching. As Hill and Crevola (1999) explain, this kind o f focus
enables teachers to meet the learning needs o f each student in the class.
Haycock’s (1998) research finds that good teaching goes a long way toward
reducing the achievement gap.
268
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School culture. Just a few years before the implementation o f new
reforms and social promotion policies and strategies, a new principal came in with
a commitment and a plan. The principal was hired to guide a school in which
teachers were not getting along with each other, teachers felt a lack o f trust in and
support from the district office, principals were rotating through the school,
truancy rates were excessive because students felt school was punitive, and where
the test scores were the lowest in the district.
Yet the new principal had a plan and a vision. His first year was spent
getting teachers to know and trust him. The goal for the second year was to get
students to like school again. He hoped to do this by providing after-school
programs and activities, and by hiring teachers who really liked kids. His goal for
the third year was to focus on test scores and student achievement
The principal had the vision to improve student achievement through the
positive culture he nurtured at the school. Once the vision was established, the
principal followed Bennis’ and Nanus’ (1985) research by developing a
commitment to and an institutionalizing o f the vision. Observations, interviews,
and the Teacher Questionnaire all indicate a strong culture of trust and respect at
the school. Because of this culture, the principal was able to implement a new
teacher-evaluation tool focusing on standards and Ventures’ strategies without a
battle with the teachers union to do so.
Several findings indicated a culture supportive of student achievement.
The principal said that teachers were eager to staff intervention programs and that
269
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
they participated in several after-school programs as volunteers. Students felt
supported by teachers and the principal. The leadership of the school and the
school-reform efforts encouraged teachers. Because the culture was positive and
they trusted the principal, teachers actively participated in the reforms focused on
improving instruction. Students were able to focus on their learning because of a
positive culture, for they remained in their classes, as indicated by a reduction of
truancies and suspensions. Research also supports the connection o f a positive
school culture to educational productivity (Deal & Peterson, 1999).
The positive school culture and other district and school reforms have
clearly supported the social promotion and retention policies and strategies by
improving the quality o f instruction for all students, resulting in increased overall
student achievement. The implications and challenge for the district are to
maintain a commitment to standards-based reform, while making the development
of performance standards a priority. The principal must continue institutionalizing
the vision, focused on student achievement, and building a positive school culture.
The teacher must become more familiar with the reform strategies and practices,
and must fully implement them in their classrooms. With these changes, even
greater improvements in student achievement will result. In turn, the number of
students at risk will diminish, and will allow for a stronger focus on those students
truly in need o f additional support.
270
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Critical Role o f the Change Process
The change process at the district and school was aided by some factors
and hindered by others. Factors impeding the implementation o f policies and
strategies at the site were contract negotiation problems and deficient
communication between the district and the teachers. Factors promoting the
implementation and necessary for the sustained use of the policies and strategies
include: the relationship of staff with the principal, the use of several types of
assistance, the balance of pressure and support, and the focus on results for
continuous improvement.
Negotiations hindered implementation. This contractual factor caused all
after-school interventions at the site to stop, reduced teacher participation on the
Retention/Promotion Committees, and limited teacher contact w ith parents of at
risk students.
Based on Teacher Questionnaire responses, contract negotiation problems
significantly impacted the relationship between the teachers and the district office.
Responses indicated negativity toward district goals, involvement, and assistance
in spite of evidence to the contrary. The feeling o f negativity was compounded by
the fact that the staff already had a great deal o f mistrust toward the district from
previous years. Research and practice over the last decade have shown that a
positive school and district culture is essential to sustaining change (Fullan,
1999). Sarason (1990) says that it is alm ost impossible to create and sustain
productive learning conditions for students when satisfactory conditions do not
271
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
exist for teachers. It is clear that the district needs to re-establish a foundation o f
trust and communication with the school after the contract is settled, in order to
increase the chances o f sustained, positive change.
Communication hindered implementation. Communication needs to be
strengthened in both directions. The teacher’s clearly indicated a lack o f
involvement and representation in the design o f the new policies and strategies.
However, the committee included teacher representatives from the schools and
the teacher’s union. Had the district publicized the process more thoroughly, and
solicited input from teachers, the teacher responses on the questionnaire may have
shown stronger agreement.
The Teacher Questionnaire also indicated a lack of shared vision between
the school and district, whereas interviews and documentation show that the
vision focused on student achievement was the same. On many questions, the
teachers did not know how the policy was designed or implemented, again
pointing to a lack o f communication.
The teachers responded to many o f the questions on the impact o f the new
policies and strategies with a “don’t know” answer. The district and schools must
communicate the results o f the implemented programs and strategies to each
other. Only by doing this, will the district understand teacher concerns about the
implementation process, and teachers understand the outcomes of their efforts
district-wide.
272
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Relationship o f principal to staff. But, despite contract negotiation
problems, it appears that several other factors aided the change process. The
school principal was instrumental in the continued implementation o f all reform
efforts. Previous to the current principal, six principals had passed through the
school in less than three years. The 1977 Rand Corporation study found that
principal and staff turnover was one of the most significant factors associated with
abandoning newly implemented change (Berman & McLaughlin, 1977). The
turnover at the site caused noticeable instability at the school level. As the current
principal has been at the school for four years, his commitment to the school is
evident. The present principal came into the school with a commitment to develop
a relationship with staff, and build trust while maintaining an organizational focus
on improving student achievement.
The good relationship with the staff, and mutual respect developed over
the last three years. While maintaining a focus on students and improving the
culture o f the school, the principal nurtured the professional community for
change. Fullan (1999) indicates that the crucial factors in sustaining change are
those interventions that impact the cultural norms of the school and nurture a
professional community.
Several assistances provided. When the time came to choose a reform for
the California School Demonstration Reform grant, the principal obtained the
district’s support and assistance in the implementation. The reform provided for
273
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
support over a three-year period, and this reform employed several o f Hubberman
and Miles’ (1984) types o f assistance, including facilitators to build capacity.
Another assistance was control or pressure at the state, district, and school
level. The state provided the legal pressure for districts to develop new policy.
The district in turn provided pressure for schools to implement the new policies.
The district then attempted to balance this pressure with support in the
implementation o f both the policies and the reform, by offering training and
resources.
Commitment to continuous improvement. A further key factor aiding in
the change process is the commitment o f the district and the school to continual
improvement. The training provided to staff and administration, based on
Schmoker’s book Results (1996), created a culture in the organization o f looking
at results to guide decision-making. The new way o f getting commitment to
change begins with the effort to try. With the improvement of teacher skills and
visibly improved student results, teachers will become committed (National
Center on Education and the Economy, 1999). The focus on results has sustained
the school’s commitment to the reforms, as teachers saw clear results in district
assessments and in class assessments the first year o f implementation.
Both the school and the district view themselves as a work in progress. For
the most part, they are aware o f the changes that they need to make to effectively
implement the policies and strategies. Each level has expressed the desire to see
program improvement for retained students, and to find ways to create stronger
274
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
alignment between instruction and assessment. The school has a collaborative
school leadership that is continuously focusing on improved student results,
academically and personally.
The district and the school must come to an agreement soon in order to re
establish intervention programs for students. A mending o f the relationship must
follow to rebuild trust and respect within the organization. The district can build
trust by being more proactive in communicating with the teachers. The school and
the district must institute a communication system to support a positive
relationship.
The strong support and assistance for change provided by the district and
school that will very likely sustain the reforms include notably: the relationship of
the staff with the principal, the use of several types o f assistance, the balance of
pressure and support, and the focus on results for continuous improvement.
Summary
The data provided answers to the research questions, and the findings from
each question led to several significant findings. These conclusions focused on the
design of the policies and strategies, the relationship o f the policies and strategies
to student achievement, and the change process in the implementation o f the
policies and strategies. The key findings identified strengths as well as
shortcomings in the implementation of social promotion policies and strategies,
and specified the implications o f each. In the final chapter, Chapter Five, this
275
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
study is summarized, and the findings lead to several important suggestions and
recommendations.
276
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Statement o f the Problem
Many states, such as California, have already passed legislation to end the
practice of social promotion and move districts toward a more proactive approach
o f early identification and intervention for students at risk of failure. Districts and
schools are struggling to develop programs and strategies to meet the needs of
those students at risk o f not reaching grade-level standards.
In order to create highly effective and equitable programs that use the best
practices, research needs to identify the design elements of effective promotion
and retention policies, strategies, and programs being implemented at the district
and site levels. The design would not only include the elements o f standards-
based reform, but also the components o f any state legislation on promotion and
retention.
Once districts and schools have identified the components necessary to the
design, they must understand how to implement them effectively into their
organization. Implementation is the key to successful programs and strategies.
Understanding how the strategies and programs fit into the broader standards-
based reform is critical to the change process.
To date, little is known about the impact that new social promotion and
retention policies and strategies have on organizational structures and priorities,
or on student achievement. Educators need to determine and understand how to
277
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
effectively design and implement adequate and effective policies and strategies to
improve student achievement and reduce associated retention problems.
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose o f this study is to describe site and district social promotion
and retention policies and strategies, and to determine the extent to which
policies, strategies, and programs have been implemented in the district and
school. Further, the study analyzes the adequacy o f the design, describes how the
design and implementation were carried out, and details what impact the
strategies and practices have had to date.
Five research questions defined the problem and guided the procedures for
this study:
1. What is the design of the district and school policies and strategies to
address social promotion and retention?
2. To what extent have the social promotion and retention policies and
strategies actually been implemented?
3. How adequate is the design o f the district and school social promotion
and retention policy and strategy?
4. How was the change process carried out in the design and
implementation o f the district and school’s social promotion and retention policies
and strategies?
5. W hat is the impact of social promotion and retention on the district and
school policies, strategies, and practices to date?
278
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Methodology
This study is part of a larger study looking at elementary, middle, and high
school levels in Northern and California schools and districts. The larger study
will compare the findings of each o f the fifteen doctoral students on the policies
and practices used to meet California’s recent legislation on social promotion and
retention. This study is a descriptive-analytic qualitative case study, limited to one
middle school in Southern California. The researcher collected data on the district
and schools programs, policies, and practices regarding social promotion and
retention, using multiple methods. The use o f multiple methods enhanced the
validity o f the study through the process o f triangulation. Research methods used
included interviews, observation, questionnaires, and researcher ratings based on
evidence gathered. The instruments were developed using conceptual
frameworks, and the conceptual frameworks were based on a combination o f
research and current legislation so as to identify the key elements addressed in the
research questions.
Sample and Population
This specific study focused on one middle school in a Southem-Califomia
elementary-school district. The district and school were chosen based on the
following criteria: (a) having a promotion and retention policy in place for at least
one year that addressed the new legislation, and (b) having implemented
standards-based instructional reform. Additional criteria included selecting from a
middle-to-large-size district with a diverse student population.
279
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Instrumentation
As the study was qualitative, conceptual frameworks were developed to
guide the creation of the instruments. Through a collaborative process in the
summer o f 2000 at the University o f California, Dr. David Marsh facilitated
fifteen doctoral candidates in developing the instrumentation for this study. These
tools were developed by using key research as the foundation of each instrument.
The team developed the instruments and frameworks during a six-week seminar
in Accountability and Improving Student Performance. Members o f the team met
on several additional occasions to refine the instruments and to discuss data
collection.
Conceptual frameworks served as the basis for the data-collection
instruments. The framework for each question is explained below.
Framework for the first research question. The first research question asks,
“What is the design of district and school policies and strategies to address social
promotion and retention?” To provide a guide for collecting data on the district
and school policies and strategies, Description o f Policies and Strategies, CFb,
was designed. The framework CFb consists o f the statutory elements required by
the state, as well as other design choices that research has shown to be important
in preventing or reducing social promotion and retention. CFb has two sections,
the first o f which deals with the design of policies and strategies, and includes the
following elements pertaining to research question one: (a) the process for policy
and strategy development, (b) the overview of the design, (c) policy and strategy
280
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dissemination, (d) policy and strategy implementation and, (e) policy and strategy
funding.
Framework for the second research question. The second research
question asks, “To what extent have the social promotion and retention policies
and strategies actually been implemented?” The sub-questions include, “What
does the practice look like?” “How does it work?” and “To what extent does it
actually enhance other district/school reform elements?” The second section of
CFb deals with the second research question and identifies five design elements
important to social promotion and retention policies and strategies, which include:
(a) identification o f at-risk students, (b) interventions for at-risk students, (c) the
decision to socially promote or retain a student, (d) post-retention or social
promotion and, (e) policy and strategy monitoring.
Framework for the third research question. The third research question
asks, “How adequate is the design o f the district and school’s social promotion
and retention policies and strategies?” Two sub-questions are identified for
research question three: “To what extent does the design o f the district and school
policies and strategies align with the traditional view, the new-context view, and
state statutory requirements?” and “To what extent are they intended to enhance
standards-based reform?”
One o f the conceptual frameworks used to determine the adequacy of the
design is Description o f State Policy-CFc. This framework states the key elements
281
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
o f the California Education Code (California Department of Education, 1998)
pertaining to Pupil Promotion and Retention.
The second measure o f adequacy for the policies and strategies,
Descriptive Comparison o f New Context and Traditional Context Social
Promotion and Retention Policies and Strategies-CFd, identifies the
characteristics present in the two contexts. The characteristics o f the traditional
and the new-reform contexts are compared in CFd. The following components act
as the fiamework for comparison: (a) beliefs, (b) policy context, (c) grade levels,
(d) subgroups, (e) curriculum, instruction, and programs, (f) formative
assessment, (g) summative assessment, (h) assessment data, (i) identification for
intervention, (j) interventions, (k) responsibility, (1) accountability, (m) decision
making for social promotion or retention, (n) notification, (o) post-social
promotion or retention, and (p) policy and strategy monitoring.
A third fiamework to measure adequacy, Description o f Standards-Based
Reform-CFe, was developed to identify the ways in which the school and district
policies and strategies on social promotion and retention fit into broader strategies
o f standards-based reform. CFe identifies the key elements of standards-based
reform and includes: (a) standards, (b) assessment, (c) instruction, (d) curriculum,
(e) personalization, (f) climate, (g) organization, (h) leadership, (i) teacher
professionalism, and 0 ) accountability. CFc and CFd address sub-question one,
whereas CFe addresses sub-question two.
282
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Framework for the fourth research question. The fourth research question
asks, “How was the change process carried out in the design and implementation
o f the social promotion and retention policies and strategies?” The sub-questions
include, “What factors contributed to or hindered the process o f change?” and
“What did participants perceive would improve social promotion and retention
policies, strategies, and practices in the district/school?”
To identify key elements o f the change process, Description o f the Change
Process-CFf was developed. Through a review o f the literature on the change
process, eight elements were identified as critical to fully implementing social
promotion policies and practices within the New Reform Context. These elements
are taken from the work of Fullan (1990), Marsh (1988), McLaughlin (1990), and
McLaughlin & Marsh (1978).
Framework for the fifth research question. The fifth research question
asks, “What was the impact o f the social promotion and retention policies and
strategies to date?” The framework, Description o f Intended Results-Cfa, was
developed to serve as the basis for data collection for the final research question.
This framework identified nine possible areas that could be impacted by the
district’s and the school’s policies and strategies. The areas o f impact are as
follows: (a) organizational beliefs, priorities, and practices, (b) instructional
practices, (c) student beliefs, motivation, and learning, (d) parent and community
support, (e) student achievement and, (f) social promotion, retention, and dropout
rates.
283
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Collection Instruments
As the study is qualitative in nature, instruments were chosen to match this
type o f study. The three instruments used included interviews, observations,
researcher ratings, and a questionnaire.
Case-studv guide. The case-study guide uses the structure o f CFb to focus
the questions of the formal interviews, the observations, and the gathering o f data.
Included in the guide are interviews, observations, and quantitative data. The
interview guide contains structured open-ended questions, followed by probing
questions designed to elicit greater detail and insight into the design and
description of promotion and retention programs within the district. Interviews
were conducted with one district-ieader, one school-leader, two teacher-leaders,
and seven students.
In addition to the interviews, formal and informal observations were
conducted at the school. Formal observations took place in classrooms,
intervention programs, and other areas o f the school. Quantitative data required
by the Case Study Guide included the school’s SAT-9 scores; Academic
Performance Index score; and retention, promotion, and drop-out rates.
Teacher Questionnaire. This instrument allowed for the anonymous
response o f teachers to 100 questions that focused on the following areas:
(a) district policies and strategies; (b) school policies and strategies on planning
and design; (c) degree o f implementation; (d) change and implementation process;
and (e) impact of the district and school policies and strategies. The questionnaire
284
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
used a Likert scale format that gave participants a five-point rating scale from 0-4,
with 1 being “disagree strongly” and 4 being “agree strongly.”
Researcher Rating Form. Based on interviews, documentation,
observations, questionnaire responses, and quantitative data, the Researcher
Rating Form aided the researcher in analyzing and documenting supporting
evidence relating to the research questions. The rating form corresponded to
Conceptual Frameworks A, C, D, and E.
Each fiamework component required the researcher to rate the categories
both “as intended,” and “as implemented.” The ratings consisted o f a five-point
scale. The Researcher Rating Form was completed after the first round o f data
collection, and then again after all the data had been assembled and analyzed.
Data Collection
The data for the study were collected in January o f 2001 in two three-day
rounds o f data collection. The data were gathered through on-site visitations to the
district office and the school site, and through observations and interviews.
The first round o f data collection included the interview with the district
administrator, the principal, and the Title 1 Coordinator at the school site.
Observation o f the front office and a support classroom completed the first round
of data collection. Following this round, the researcher completed a preliminary
data analysis to determine the areas of further data collection and to discover any
omissions in the data collected.
285
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The second round of data collection was conducted solely at the school
site. The teacher interviews, the formal classroom observations, the student
interviews, and the informal interviews and observations took place at that time.
Teacher Questionnaires were distributed and returned on one o f two staff
development days the second week.
Data Analysis
The Researcher Rating Form and the Case Study Guide provided the basis
for analysis, as they required supporting evidence for each o f the five research
questions. The first step of data analysis occurred after the first round of data
collection, and consisted of the initial researcher rating. The researcher completed
an initial rating to identify any gaps in the data collection. The second step o f data
analysis included the transcribing o f interviews, the review o f district and site
documents, and the tallying o f Teacher Questionnaires.
The final step of analysis included the researcher’s reviewing all o f the
printed and transcribed data. The data was color-coded to indicate supporting
evidence for each of the research questions. The researcher rating form was filled
in a final time, and supporting evidence for each of the ratings was entered onto
the form. Evidence for the ratings was drawn from the interviews, documents,
questionnaires, and observations.
Summary o f Findings
Each o f the five research questions identified several key findings. The
findings indicate three overarching themes in the study. The findings for each
286
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
question are reported in this section, and followed by a discussion o f the themes
that impacted the district and school’s social promotion policies and strategies.
Research Question One
Research question one identified the design o f the social promotion and
retention policies and strategies at the district level. The key findings concerning
the design follow.
The design o f the policies and strategies is thorough and well thought out.
The district design is specific, and includes clear multiple-assessment criteria,
timelines, notifications, monitoring documents, and committee requirements for
making final retention decisions. The design also enhances the standards-based
reform already occurring within the district. This is done through the use o f
standards-based assessments for retention criteria, and the continued alignment of
assignments and instruction with standards.
The design o f the policy avoided implementation problems through the
use o f a multi-year implementation plan. Although teachers may have felt that the
criteria for retention was too low the first year, phasing in higher criteria provided
for three important conditions. First, students at risk o f retention would be given
the time to receive interventions before retention. Second, the teachers would
have more time to align their instructional program with state standards, thus
making standards-based assessments valid criteria for retention decisions. And
finally, phasing in higher criteria avoided the excessive-failure dilemma that other
districts were facing in the first year o f implementation. With high criteria, many
287
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
districts were unable to handle the number o f retained students, and were forced
to socially promote them in spite of the criteria.
The design process was top-down and did not engage teachers and the
community. Although the district was thorough in its dissemination o f the new
policy, teachers did not feel involved in the design. The committee representatives
constituted the only involvement of teachers and the community in the process.
Based on teacher responses on the questionnaire and interviews, teachers, as a
whole, did not feel that they had much input in the design o f the policy.
Research Question Two
The data from the second research question describes the policies and
strategies for social promotion and retention as they are practiced at the school.
The data is also used to evaluate the extent to which the policies and strategies
enhance other district- and school-reform elements.
Negotiation problems between the district and the teachers’ union severely
impacted intervention programs. The first year o f implementation saw the use of
multiple intervention programs at the school. With teachers adhering to a strict
interpretation o f the “workday,” intervention programs were not formally staffed
in the second year o f implementation. Teachers were discouraged by colleagues
from working after-school hours.
Although the problem did not seem to affect the relationship o f teachers to
administration at the school level, it certainly affected the ability o f administration
to ensure that students were provided with appropriate interventions. Some
288
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers continued to provide “low-key” after-school tutoring, and one ELL
intervention program continued to be staffed. Primarily, any intervention offered
to students in the second year of implementation had to be included in the
teacher’s contracted workday. Additionally, parent contact was limited, as many
parents did not get home from work until after the teacher work day, and most
teachers dropped the voluntary duty o f being mentors for at-risk students.
The school does not use multiple criteria in identifying students at risk o f
retention. Although the district provides multiple-assessment data to the site for
purposes o f identification, the school uses solely the SAT-9 scores o f students to
create the original list o f at-risk students. This causes problems at the school, for
some students do not enter the district with SAT-9 scores, and some parents waive
the test for their children. Teachers are further concerned that the needs o f
students who score above the cut-off on the SAT-9, but continue to fail their
academic courses are not being addressed. Greater alignment is needed between
grades and SAT-9 scores to ensure student accountability.
Social promotion and retention strategies strongly coordinate to other
school reform efforts. The coordination o f the district initiated standards-based
reform, and the Ventures reform model chosen by the school enhance the
instruction offered to all students, thereby reducing the number o f at risk students.
The two reforms emphasize the use o f assessment data to identify
individuals and groups o f students at risk. The reforms focus the staff on
identifying instructional strategies to meet the needs of at-risk students, and using
289
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
higher-level thinking to engage students in learning. Aligning instruction,
curriculum, and assessments with the standards is a component o f both reforms
that intends to create a stronger alignment between teacher grades and the
standards-based assessments used as retention criteria. Without the training
received through the implementation o f the reforms, the new policies and
strategies would not be as effective.
Research Question Three
Research question three evaluates the adequacy o f the policies and
strategies for promotion and retention based on their alignment with the following
areas: state policy requirements, new-context policies and strategies, and
standards-based reform.
The district and school policies and strategies are clearly aliened with state
policy. The district policy and guidelines are judged adequate, based on the strong
alignment with state statutory requirements.
The lack o f performance standards in the district and school impact
adequacy ratings. The alignment rating o f standards-based reform elements
including standards, assessment, instruction, and leadership are all affected by
lack o f performance standards. The present standards do not include performance
descriptions or an explanation o f the requirements to meet a standard; assessments
tend to use grades to define “how good is good enough?” instead o f performance
descriptions. Instruction cannot be organized around clear expectations when
290
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
performance standards are absent; nor can leadership ensure continuity among
assignments and grades when performance standards are absent
Weaknesses at the school and district level include policy and strategy
monitoring and post-retention programs. Neither the district nor the school keeps
statistics on socially promoted students. Although retention rates are documented,
the lack o f data on socially promoted students could mask a disparate impact on
sub groups o f students. Failing to document socially promoted students may also
cause the evaluation o f interventions to overlook needed changes. Further, it is
impossible to determine the impact o f the new policies and strategies on social
promotion if data is not kept.
Post-retention programs and strategies are weak. Because the previous
district policy did not subscribe to retention, the programs for retained students in
the second year o f implementation are weak. Teachers and administrators admit to
the fact that alternative programs for these students are inadequate or nonexistent,
and that scheduling is not always modified to provide for a differentiated
curriculum. Both the district and the school identified this as an area for
improvement.
Research Question Four
The fourth research question used the responses from the Teacher
Questionnaire to identify the way in which the change process was carried out.
The data provided insight into the factors that contributed to and hindered the
process o f change.
291
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
School leadership support was significant in the change process. The
Teacher Questionnaire and interviews indicated a respect and feeling o f support
from the site principal. A mutual respect valuing the professionalism o f educators
was evident at the school even in the midst o f negotiation tensions. The principal
maintained a focus on interventions for students in ways that would not violate
the teacher workday, and he continued to demonstrate his commitment to the
ongoing process o f implementation.
The relationship of standards-based reform and social promotion and
retention policies and strategies is integral to the school. Not only has the district
required the implementation o f standards, but also the majority o f teachers at the
school have bought into the reform. The buy-in stems from the staff choosing the
school-reform model. The Ventures’ model supports a commitment to the
integration o f standards into a strong instructional program designed to increase
student achievement.
Negotiation problems hindered the change process. Not only did
negotiation problems affect the implementation of interventions in the 2000-2001
school year, but they also greatly affected teacher feelings and perceptions. The
Teacher Questionnaire indicates a strong disagreement on most questions of
district support and leadership, despite data that contradicts those perceptions.
Teacher responses reflect a strong negativity to the district office, which has
certainly affected the complete acceptance o f district policies and strategies.
292
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question Five
Research question five rates the impact o f the social promotion and
retention policies and strategies on multiple areas in the organization.
The new policies and strategies greatly affected organizational practices.
The social-promotion policies and strategies created a clear process for the
identification and intervention o f students at risk o f retention. The practice o f the
organization previously had been to look at percentages o f at-risk students. The
new policy caused the school to look at individual students at risk, identify their
needs, and provide interventions to address those deficiencies.
Data reveals increased student performance. Increased student
performance was evident on multiple measures in the 1999-2000 school year. But
the implementation of social promotion and retention policies coincided with the
implementation of other reforms at the school. Although the Teacher
Questionnaire did not indicate a strong agreement by teachers that the promotion
and retention policies and strategies were solely responsible for increased student
achievement, other data indicated improvement. Yet, upon the review of SAT-9
assessment data, the staff expressed the view that student progress was a result of
the focus on state-content standards and extensive intervention programs for at-
risk students.
Conclusions
The three themes running through the findings address the following
areas: (a) the design o f the policies and strategies on implementation, (b) the
293
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
combined impact o f the new policies and strategies, other reforms, and the
positive school culture on student achievement, and (c) the role o f the change
process in the policy and strategy implementation. The district design for
promotion and retention was adequately designed, but was not being implemented
at the school site as intended. Students at risk of retention were not being
identified based on multiple measures, but rather on their SAT-9 scores alone.
Student achievement was affected by the new policies and strategies
addressing social promotion and retention, as well as the culture and reforms o f
the school. The positive school culture established by the new principal allowed
for the acceptance o f reforms focused on improving instruction and curriculum
for all students, thus improving student achievement.
Although contract-negotiation problems hindered the implementation o f
intervention programs in the second year, enough supports and assistances were
provided to sustain the change in spite o f the setback. The principal’s
commitment to change and his relationship with the staff, the continued
professional development and training o f staff, the balance o f pressures and
supports, and the sustained focus on continuous improvement are all factors
supporting the change.
Implications
Failing to address the issue o f underachievement in America could
produce devastating effects. Yet, enacting legislation without reviewing its
effectiveness and impact on student achievement is equally as dangerous.
294
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Although this study reviews the effect o f the legislation on only one middle
school in Southern California, the findings relate to the broader educational
community. The results o f this study have implications for policy-makers
concerned with the impact o f the new legislation, for district and site leaders
focusing on design and implementation issues, and for teachers trying to improve
student achievement.
Policy makers. The policy in California on social promotion and retention
(AB 1626) has been effective in providing the pressure to get districts to think
about and provide early identification and intervention o f students at risk o f
failing. Sunny Union School district created a policy that is aimed at improving
student achievement and preventing retention because o f the legislation.
As other reform efforts show a positive impact on new promotion and
retention policies, policy-makers must investigate ways to tie in funding and
support o f other reforms for a stronger implementation. Understanding that full
implementation of policies and strategies is a process; policy-makers must also
commit the time, money, and professional development necessary for a strong and
thorough implementation.
An area o f weakness identified in this study was post-retention programs.
Because small numbers o f students are retained at each school, providing
differentiated classroom settings created a financial barrier. Policy-makers should
explore program and funding options for post-retention programs to ensure those
students are provided adequate and equitable educational opportunities.
295
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
District and site leaders. This study contains several implications for
district and site leaders. First, to guarantee the greatest change o f successful
implementation, district leaders need to investigate ways to engage and involve
the community and teachers in the development o f policies and practices
addressing social promotion and retention. Initial buy-in from these groups will
go a long way in the support o f the policies.
Second, district and site leaders must institute the key components of
standards-based reform for a strong promotion and retention policy. For teachers,
students, and parents to have a clear understanding o f what students constitutes
“meeting a standard,” district leaders must develop performance standards and
benchmarks. In this study, the lack of clear performance standards caused
students and teachers to rely on test scores as measures o f proficiency.
Performance standards are also necessary to aid site leaders in holding teachers
accountable for maintaining continuity of assignments, assessments, and reports
to parents.
Third, district and site leaders need to look at the use o f social promotion
data as well as retention data. Data on both groups should be kept for analysis to
determine if specific subgroups o f students are unequally represented. This data
will further aid district and site leaders in providing tailored interventions for the
needs of socially promoted students.
Finally, this study identified the need for district and site leaders to
continually monitor and assess the implementation o f the new policies and
296
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
strategies to ensure fidelity to the original design. As was the case in this study,
failing to comply in just one area may result in the under-identification o f students
at risk. Also, through a continual monitoring, weaknesses in the design or
implementation process can be detected and corrected.
Teachers. Teachers are clearly the key to the successful implementation of
social promotion policies and strategies. No matter how adequate the design, if
teachers are not supportive o f the policies and strategies, they will fail. Teachers
are essential to the success o f at-risk students, and must actively involve
themselves in the process o f identification and intervention. Teachers must also
communicate areas o f concern or need to administrators for continued feedback
on the effectiveness o f the current policies and practices.
Teachers also need to evaluate their instruction and grading system for
alignment with standards. This study reveals that students are unclear on how to
meet standards. This is an area that only teachers can communicate to students.
Without this understanding, the district and school criteria for promotion and
retention remain “just test scores” and do not provide a means for students to
assess and improve their own work. Teachers must provide student work samples
to show students what meeting a standard “looks like.”
Suggestions for Additional Research
1. This study only touched on student beliefs, motivation, and learning. The
findings revealed that the policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention had little impact on student motivation. Although interviews indicate the
297
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“threat o f retention” motivated some students to work harder, several listed
extrinsic rewards as the only possible motivation to learn. Even when students
were offered intervention opportunities, many did not attend. Studies should
research successful programs for motivating students to learn, and combine those
strategies with the currently successful intervention programs. The studies should
especially target the middle school level, as it is a critical age for dropout.
2. Further research needs to identify ways in which districts and schools can
create stronger partnerships with parents. The findings o f this study show that in
spite o f several programs aimed at involving parents, the feeling that parents were
partners in the child’s education was not pronounced. Communities, districts, and
schools that model strong, shared accountability between student, school, and
home must be identified and studied.
3. Before the advent of the new state statutes on social promotion, districts
and.schools rarely kept data on retained or socially promoted students. Now that
data is being kept, further studies should research the profile of students
represented in the new data. A desired outcome o f standards-based reform is
greater equity. The new data on which students are being retained may indicate
the success of that outcome. Analyzing the data will also provide insight into
areas o f further need.
4. Successful post-retention programs and strategies are rarely discussed in
the literature, and they were a weakness in the school and the district studied.
298
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Future research should identify successful programs and curricula for retained
students, as well as investigate ways of funding such programs.
299
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
References
Achilles, C., Finn, J., & Bain, H. (1998). Using class size to reduce the
equity gap. Educational Leadership. 40-43.
Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Dauber, S. (1994). On the success of
failure: A reassessment o f the effects o f retention in the primary grades. Port
Chester, NY: Cambridge University Press.
American Federation o f Teachers. (1997, September). Passing on failure:
District promotion policies and practices. American Federation o f Teachers.
Washington, DC: Author.
Archer, J. (1998). Approach high stakes assessment with caution. NRC
report urges. Education Week on the Web. [On-line]. Available:
http://wwwledweek.org/ew/vol. 18/01 nas/h!8.
Association o f California School Administrators Task Force (1996).
Statewide Academic Standards: Doing It Right. Association o f California School
Administrators. June 21,1996.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Student assessment. In D. August & K.
Hakuta (Eds.), Improving schooling for language minority children: A research
agenda. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Baker, J., & Sansone, J. (1990). Interventions with students at-risk for
dropping out o f school: A high school responds. Journal o f Educational Research.
83 (4), 181-186.
Bardach, E., & Lesser, C. (1996, April). Accountability in Human
Services Collaborative: For what? And to who? Journal o f Public Administration:
Research and Theorvf April. 1996).
Barth, P., Haycock, K., Jackson, H., Mora, K., Ruiz, P., Robinson, S., &
Wilkins, A. (1999). Dispelling the myth: High poverty schools exceeding
expectations. The Education Trust.
Benard, B. (1993). Fostering resiliency in kids. Educational Leadership.
5L 44-48.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.
300
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Berger, J. (2000). Does top-down, standards-based reform work? A review
o f the status o f staewide standards-based reform. National Association o f
Secondary School Principals Bulletin. 84 (612), 57-65.
Berman. P, & McLaughlin, M. (1977). Federal programs supporting
educational change, vol. VIII: Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand.
Betts, J. R., Rueben, K. S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources,
equal outcomes? The distribution o f school resources and student achievement in
California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute o f California.
Beubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking,
promotion, and graduation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Effects o f retention among children in the United States.
Pediatrics. 93. (3), 481-487.
Buttram, J. L., & Waters, T. (1997). Improving America's schools through
standards-based education. Bulletin. 81. (590), 1-6.
Byrnes, D. (1989). Attitudes o f students, parents and educators toward
repeating a grade. In L. Shepard & M. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research
and policies on grade retention. New York, NY: The Falmer Press.
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
California Department o f Education. (1998). Pupil promotion and
retention information packet. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ppr/toc.htm.
California Department o f Education (1999). Selected statewide summary
data for the year 1998-1999: Number o f dropouts in California public schools,
grades 9-12. [On-line]. Available: http://datal.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/state.
California Department o f Education. (2000). Standards-Based Reform in
California. [On-line]. Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/iasa/standards/.
Cook, W. (1941). Grouping and Promotion in the Elementary School.
Minneapolis, MN: University o f Minnesota Press.
Cooke, G., & Stammer, J. (1985, March/April). Grade retention and social
promotion practices. Childhood Education. 302-308.
301
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cox, J. (2000). Are standards worth it? Thrust for Educational
Achievement. 29 (5 ~ > . 8-11.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1991). The implications o f testing policy for
quality and equality. Phi Delta Kappan. 73 (3), 220-225.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based assessment and
educational equity. Harvard Educational Review. 64 (1), 5-30.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998a, August). Alternatives to grade retention.
The School Administrator. 7. 18-21.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998b, November). Using standards to support
student success. Paper presented at the Asilomar Symposium on "Standards,
Students, and Success", Redwood City, CA.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Ball, D. L. (1997). Teaching for high standards:
What policymakers need to know and be able to do. An unpublished paper
prepared for the National Education Goals PaneL
Darling-Hammond, L. & Falk, B. (1997). Using standards and
assessments to support student learning. Phi Delta Kappan. 79. (3), 190-199.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart
o f leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation o f academic
learning in middle-level schools. The Elementary School Journal 100. (5), 473-
490.
Devries, K. E., & Cohn, C. A (1998, August). Wrestling with retention.
The School Administrator. 7 .24-29.
Donahue, P. L., Voelkl, K. E., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). The
NAEP 1998 reading report card for the nation and the states (NCES 1999-500).
Washington, DC: Office o f Educational Research and Improvement. National
Center for Education Statistics.
Education Commission o f States (1999). Reading: What policymakers
need to know. [On-line]. Available: http.ecs.org/ecsweb.nsf.
Education Commission o f States (1999). State Student Promotion and
Retention Policies. [On-line]. Available: http.ecs.org.
302
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EdSource. (2000, May) National accountability movement offers lessons
for California. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource, Inc.
Fashola, O., & Slavin, R. E. (1998). Schoolwide reform models: What
works? [On-line]. Phi Delta Kappa International. Available:
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/ksla9801 .htm.
Fashola, O., Slavin, R. E., Calderon, M., & Duran, R. (1997). Effective
programs for Latino students in elementary and middle schools (11): Center for
Research on the Education o f Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR).
Feldman, S. (1997, Fall). Passing on failure. American Educator, 4-10.
Florida Department o f Education (1998). FCAT owners' manual:
Background information for Florida citizens about the Florida comprehensive
assessment test. [On-line]. Available: http://www.fim.edu.doe/.
Folger, J. (1989). Project STAR and class size policy. Peabodv Journal o f
Education. 6 7 .1-33.
Foorman, B. (1998). The role o f instruction in learning to read: Preventing
reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology. 90. (1), 37-
55.
Forgione, P. (1998). Achievement in the United States: Progress since a
nation at risk? Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Foster, J. (1993). Review o f research: Retaining children in grade.
Childhood Education. (70). 38-43.
Frey, S. (2000). National accountability movement offers lessons for
California. EdSource. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource, Inc.
Fullan, M. (1990). Staff development, innovation, and institutional
development. In Joyce, B. (Ed.), 1990 ASCD Yearbook: Changing School
Culture Through Staff Development. Alexandria. VA: Association o f Supervision
and Curiculum Development.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths o f educational
reform. London: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer
Press.
303
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An
introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gandara, P. (1997). Review o f research on instruction o f limited English
proficient students: A report to the California Legislature. Santa Barbara. CA: The
Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Garcia, E. (1990). Bilingualism and the academic performance o f
Mexican-American children: The evolving debate (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. EDO RC 90 9). Charleston, West VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural
Education and Small Schools.
George, C. (1993). Bevond retention: A study o f retention rates, practices
and successful alternatives in California (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 365 005). Sacramento, CA: California State Department o f Education.
Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge.
American Psvcologist. 39 (2), 93-104.
Goodlad, J. (1954). Some effects o f promotion and nonpromotion upon
the social and personal adjustment o f children. Journal of Experimental
Education. 2 2 .301-327.
Gratz, D. B. (2000). High standards for whom? Phi Delta Kappan (May.
2001. 681-687.
Grissom, J. B., & Shepard, L. A. (1989). Repeating and Dropping Out o f
School. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and
policies on retention (pp. 34-63). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.
Hall, G. E. & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools. New York, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Hammack, F. (1986). Large school systems' dropout reports: An analysis
o f definitions, procedures, and findings. College Record. 87 (3), 324-341.
Harrington-Lueker, D. (1998, August). Retention vs. social promotion.
The School Administrator. 7. (55), 6-12.
Harris, A. (2000). What works in school improvement? Lessons from the
field and future directions. Educational Research. 42 (1), 1-11.
304
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Harvey, B. (1994). Retention: A narrative review o f one hundred years of
practice. Nashville, TN: The Center o f Excellence for Research and Policy on
Basic Skills.
Hauser, R. (1999, April 7). What if we ended social promotion? Education
Week.
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers
can close the gap. Thinking K-16. 3. (2), 1-14.
Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (1999). The role o f standards in educational reform
for the 21st century. In D. D. Marsh (Ed.), 1999 ASCD Yearbook: Preparing our
schools for the 21st century (pp. 117-142). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hollins, E. R., & Spencer, K. (1990). Restructuring schools for cultural
inclusion: Changing the schooling process for African American youngsters.
Journal of Education. 172(2).
Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis o f
research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades:
Research and policies on retention (pp. 16-33). Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press.
House, E. R. (1989). Policy implications o f retention research. In L. A.
Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking Grades: Research and policies on
retention. London: The Falmer Press.
Howell, P., Miller, B., & Frey, S. (2000). STAR 2000: Rising scores and
some widening gaps. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource.
James-Ward, C. (2000, July). Seminar in Accountability and Improving
Student Performance. Personal appearance at the EDPA 599, University of
Southern California.
Johnson, J. R. (1984, May). Synthesis o f research on grade retention and
social promotion. Educational Leadership. 66-68.
Jones, R. (2000). Making standards work: Researchers report effective
strategies for implementing standards. American School Board Journal. 187. (9),
27-31.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The
messages of research. Educational Leadership 37 (5). 379-385.
305
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kain, J. F., & Singleton, K. (1996). Equality o f educational opportunity
revisited. New England Economic Review. (May/June), 109.
Karweit, N. L. (1991). Repeating a grade: Time to grow or denial o f
opportunity? (16). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Effective Schooling
for Disadvantaged Students.
Karweit, N. L. (1999). Grade retention: Prevalence, timing and effects
(33). Washington, DC: Office o f Research and Improvement.
Kennedy-Manzo, K. (1997). High stakes: Test truths or consequences.
Education Week on the Web. [On-line].
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Liberatory consequences o f literacy: A case o f
culturally relevant instruction for African American students. Howard University
Press. 62 (3).
Linn, R. S. (2000). Assessment and accountability. [On-line]. Available:
http://webmaster@cse.ucla.edu.
Madden, N., & Slavin, R. E. (1989). Effective pullout programs for
students at risk. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & N. Madden (Eds.), Effective
Programs for Students At Risk . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Mantzicopoulus, P. Y., Morrison, D. C., Hinshaw, S. P., & Carte, E. T.
(1989). Nonpromotion in kindergarten: The role o f cognitive, perceptual, visual-
motor, behavioral, achievement, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics.
American Educational Research Journal. 26 ML 107-121.
Marsh, D. (1988). Key factors associated with the effective
implementation and impact o f California's educational reform. A paper presented
at the Annual Meeting o f the American Educational Research Association, April
1988.
Marzano, R., & Kendall, J. (1997). National and state standards: The
problems and the promise. Bulletin. 81(590). 26-41.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
May, D. C., Kundert, D. K., & Brent, D. (1995). Does delayed school
entry reduce later grade retentions and use o f special education services?
Remedial and Special Education. 16 (5), 288-294.
306
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
McCollum, P., Cortex, A., Maroney, O. H., & Montex, F. (1999). Failing
our children: Finding alternatives to in-grade retention. (On-line]. Intercultural
Development Research Association. Available:
http://www.idra.org/Research/ingrade.pdf.
McCombs, B., & Whisler, J. (1997). The Learner-Centered Classroom and
School: Strategies for Increasing Student Motivation and Achievement. San
Franc isco:CA, Jossey-Bass Publishers.
McLaughlin, M (1990). The RAND change agent study revisited: Macro
perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher. 19 (9), 11-16.
McLaughlin, M. & Marsh, D. (1978). Staff development and school
change. Teachers College Record. 80 (1). 69-94.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Shepard, L. A. (1995). Improving education
through standards-based reform. Stanford, CA: The National Academy o f
Education.
McLeod, B. (1994). Linguistic diversity and academic achievement. In B.
McLeod (Ed.), Language and learning: Educating linguistically diverse students.
Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Meisels, S. (1989). Testing, tracking, and retaining voung children: An
analysis o f research and social policy. Washington D.C.: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Meisels, S. J., & Liaw, F.R. (1993). Failure in grade: Do retained students
catch up? Journal o f Educational Research. 87 (2), 69-77.
Merrick, J., McCreery, K., & Brown, J. (1998, September 23). Student
success in a standards-based system: Moving bevond social promotion and
retention (A position paper o f The Association o f California School
Administrators), [On-line]. Available:http://www.acsa.org/publications/Social_
Promotion/index.html.
Morris, D. (1993). Patterns o f aggregate grade-retention rates. American
Educational Research Journal. 30. 497-514.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1990) America's choice: High
skills or low wages. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the
Economy.
307
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
National Center for Fair & Open Testing. (1995). Principles and indicators
for student assessment systems. Cambridge, MA: Author.
National Center on Education and the Economy. (1990). America's
Choice: High skills or low wages . Rochester, NY: Author.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at
risk: The imperative for educational reform . Washington, D.C.: United States
Department o f Education.
National Education Goals Panel (1998). Promising practices: Progress
toward the goals, lessons from the states. Washington D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office.
Natriello, G. (1998, August). Failing grades for retention. The School
Administrator. 55. 15-17.
Oakes, J. (1992). Test-driven school reform and the disadvantaged.
Education Digest. 58 (1), 20-23.
Oakes, J. (2000, July 5). Seminar in Accountability and Improving Student
Performance. Paper presented at the EDPA 599, University o f Southern
California.
Oakes, J., & Upton, M. (1999). Teaching to change the world. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oakes, J., Wells, A S., Jones, M., & Datnow, A. (1997). Detracking: The
social construction o f ability, cultural politics, and resistance to reform. Teachers
College Record. 98 (3), 482-510.
Odden, A. & Marsh, D. (1988). How comprehensive state education
reform can improve secondary schools. Phi Delta Kappan. 69 (8), 593-598.
Odden, A. (2000). The new school finance: Providing adequacy and
improving equity. Journal o f Education Finance. 25 (4), 467-488.
Ogbu, J. (1994). Racial stratification and education in the United States:
Why inequality persists. Teachers College Record. 96 (2).
Ogbu, J., & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A
cultural-ecological theory o f school performance with some implications for
education. Anthropology and Educational Quarterly. 29 ( 7 Y 155-188.
308
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Olson, L. (1998). The push for accountability gathers steam, [On-line].
Education Week on the Web. Available: www.edweek.org [2000, April 16].
Owens, S.A. & Ranick, D.L. (1977). The Greensville program:
Commonsense approach to basics. Phi Delta Kappan. 7 4 .253-256.
Oxley, D, & McCabe, J. (1990). Restructuring neighborhood high schools:
The house plan solution. New York, NY: Public Education Association and Bank
Street College o f Education.
Peterson, S. E., DeGracie, J. S., & Ayabe, C. R. (1987). A longitudinal
study o f the effects o f retention/promotion on academic achievement. American
Educational Research Journal. 24. 107-118.
Pinnell, G., DeFord, D., & Lyons, C. (1988). Reading recovery: Early
intervention for at-risk first graders. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service
Monograph.
Plummer, S. (1984). The academic and social consequences o f grade
retention: A convergent analysis. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Elementary and Early Childhood Education.
Portner, J. (1997). Trouble ahead for older students, study finds. Education
Week. 17(7).
Raymond, J., Wlodkowski, J., & Ginsberg, M. (1995). A framework for
culturally responsive teaching. Educational Leadership. 53 (1), 17-21.
Reese, C. M., Miller, K. E., Mazzeo, J., & Dossey, J. A. (1997). NAEP
1996 mathematics report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Reynolds, A., Temple, J., & McCoy, A. (1997). Grade retention doesn't
work. Education Week. 17 (3).
Riley, R., Smith, M., & Peterson, T. (1999). Taking responsibility for
ending social promotion: U.S. Department o f Education.
Roderick, M. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating
the association. American Educational Research Journal 31 (4), 729-759.
309
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Roderick, M. (1995). Grade retention and school dropout: Policy debate
and research questions. [On-line]. Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation,
Development and Research. Available: http://pdkintl.org/edres/resbull5.htm
[2000, July 7].
Roderick, M., Bryk, A., Jacob, B., Easton, J., & Allensworth, E. (1999).
Ending social promotion: Results from the first two years. Chicago, Illinois:
Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Rudolph, A. (1999). Alternatives to social promotion and grade retention:
Overview. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/timelv/sDover.htm
Sandin, A. (1944). Social and emotional adjustments o f regularly
promoted and nonpromoted pupils. New York, NY: Bureau o f Publications,
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Sarason. S. (19901. The predictable failure o f educational reform. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker, M. (1996). Results: The key to continuous improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (2000). The results we want. Educational Leadership. 57.
62-65.
Setencich, J. (1994). The impact o f earlv grade retention on the academic
achievement and selfesteem o f seventh and eighth grade students. Paper
presented at the Annual Convention o f the National Association o f School
Psychologists, Washington, DC.
Shepard, L., & Smith, M. (1986). Synthesis o f research on school
readiness and kindergarten retention. Educational Leadership. 44. 78-86.
Shepard, L. A , & Smith, M. L. (Eds.). (1989). Flunking grades: Research
and policies on retention. London: The Falmer Press.
Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1990). Synthesis o f research on grade
retention. Educational Leadership. 47. 84-88.
Singham, M. (1998). The canary in the mine: The achievement gap
between black and white students. Phi Delta Kappan. 9-15.
310
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Slavin, R. E., & Fashola, O. (1998). Show me the evidence! Proven and
promising programs for America's schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Preventing early
school failure: What works? Educational Leadership. 50. 10-18.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. (1989). Effective classroom programs for
students at risk. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & N. Madden (Eds.), Effective
Programs for Students At Risk (pp. 23-51). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Every child,
every school success for all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Steiner, K. (1986). Grade retention and promotion (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 267 899). Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Elementary and Early Childhood Education.
Stevens, J., Tuck, L., & Zimmerman, F. (1999). One more time: The
social promotion debate. [On-line]. Available:
http://horizon.unc.edu/EDSP287/1999/Zimmerman/Social Promotion.html [2000,
June 27].
Stringfield, S., Millsap, M. A., & Herman, R. (1996). Urban and
suburban/rural special strategies for educating disadvantaged children: Findings
and policy implications o f a longitudinal study. [On-line]. U. S. Department of
Education, Office o f Policy and Planning. Available:
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ccvi/_old/Forums/forum_v2_no2/stringfield.html
[2000, July 10].
Stroup, S., & Zirkel, P. (1983). A legal look at the retention/promotion
controversy. Journal of School Psychology. 2 1 .213-217.
Texas Education Agency. (1999, June). Student assessment division, [On
line]. Available: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student assessment/.
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (1998). A nation still at risk: An
education manifesto. [On-line]. A Nation Still at Risk Summit. Available:
http://edexcellence.net/library/manifes.html.
Thomas, A. M., Armistead, L., Kempton, T., Lynch, S., Forehand, R.,
Nousiainen, S., Neighbors, B., & Tannenbaum, L. (1992). Early retention: Are
there long-term beneficial effects? Psychology in the Schools. 29. 342-347.
311
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tomchin, E. M., & Impara, J. C. (1992). Unraveling teachers' beliefs
about grade retention. American Educational Research Journal. 29 (1), 199-223.
Tucker, M. S., & Codding, J. B. (1998). Standards for our schools: How to
set them, measure them, and reach them. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Tucker, M. S., & Codding, J. B. (1999). Education and the demands o f
democracy in the next millennium. In D. D. Marsh (Ed.), 1999 ASCD Yearbook:
Preparing our schools for the 21s * Century. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
United States Department o f Education. (1990). National center for
educational statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
United States Department o f Education. (1999a). Discrimination
Complaint under Title VI o f the Civil Rights Act o f 1964: Office o f Civil Rights:
Author.
United States Department o f Education. (1999b). Taking responsibility for
ending social promotion: A guide for educators and state and local leaders
(G.P.O. Publication No. 1999-720-601). Washington D.C: United States
Government Printing Office.
United States Department o f Education National Center for Education
Statistics (2000). Student data handbook elementary, secondary and early
childhood education: 2000 edition (NCES 2000-343). Washington, DC: United
States Government Printing Office.
University of California Los Angeles School o f Mental Health Project
(1998). Denying social promotion obligated schools to do more to address barriers
to learning. Addressing Barriers to Learning. 3. 1 -7.
Wheelock, A. (1998). Extra help and support in 'most standards' and
prevent grade retetion. [On-line]. Available:
http://wwwcsteep.be.edu/ctestweb/retention2.html [2000, July 6].
Wheelock, A. (1999). Introduction to the issues. Spotlight issues: Social
promotion and grade retention. [On-line].
Available: http://wwwcsteep.cb.edu/CTESTWEB
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding bv design. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
312
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Williams, T. (1998). Who are California's students? EdSource. Palo Alto,
CA: EdSource.
Wilson, J A , & Wheelock, A. (1999). The standards movement in
education: Will poor and minority students benefit?. [On-line]. Poverty and Race
Research Action Council. Available:
http://www.prrac.org/topics/education/standard.htm.
Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
313
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A
Conceptual Framework B
Description of Policies and Strategies
Social Promotion and Retention Policies and Strategies Design
The Process for Policy and Strategy Development
• What was the goal o f the process?
• What underlying beliefs were a part o f the process?
• Why did the process take place?
• What initiated the process? What was the identified need?
• What was the level of community and parent involvement?
• How was the staff involved?
• What role did the Governing Board assume?
• What param eters were set for the process? By whom?
• Were the state statutory policy requirements taken into account during the process?
• What outside influences affected the development process?
• What inside influences affected the development process?
Overview o f the Design
• What polices are included, direct and indirect?
• What is the vision o f the policy?
• What underlying beliefs are included in the policy?
• Were the state statutory elements included?
• Were unique district elements added?
• Were Standards included in the policy?
• Do the policies and strategies include programs or interventions to be used?
• Does the policy exclude any students?
• What criteria for promotion and retention were included in the policy?
• What choices were made at the district level?
• What choices were allowed for the school to make?
• What is the historical perspective? W hat’s different about past practices?
• What does a year look like (timeline o f events and deadlines)?
• What outside influences affected policy and strategy design?
• What inside influences affected policy and strategy design?
• What role did fiscal and funding issues play in the design of the policies and strategies?
Policy and Strategy Dissemination
• How were the changed policies and strategies publicized to staff, parents, students and
the public?
• What factors were considered important in the dissemination?
• How were the changed policies and strategies actually disseminated?
Policy and Strategy Implementation
• Who was tasked with implementation at the district and site levels?
• What factors were considered important in the implementation?
314
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Were the policies and strategies fully implemented in year one, or were they phased in
over time?
• What outside influences affected implementation?
• What inside influences affected implementation?
• What roadblocks were identified in implementation, i.e. facilities?
Policy and Strategy Funding
• How are the strategies and interventions funded?
• Does the district control the budgeting and funding of the programs and strategies, or do
schools have a role?
• What percentage o f the cost is covered by the state summer school funding and the K-4
Reading Initiative funding?
• How has funding issues affected curricular and instructional decisions?
Social Prom otion an d R etention Policies and Strategies in Practice
Identification o f At Risk Students
• How are students identified as at risk?
• Who is responsible for identifying a student as at risk?
• Who is involved in the identification?
• What criteria are used to determine if a student is at risk?
• What, if any, non-academic elements are used, i.e. attendance?
• What assessments are used? Are multiple measure used? Is the STAR used?
• What data are used?
• Who provides the data?
• How is it disaggregated?
• How early in their school career, or within a school year, are students identified as at
risk?
• At what grade levels are students identified as at risk?
• What political and educational considerations are made in identifying students?
• Are any sub groups of students excluded?
• Are any sub groups o f students targeted?
• Is the identification process for at risk students, formal or informal?
• Is it reported at the site level? Is it reported to the district?
• Does the information stay solely with the teacher?
• How are at risk student monitored throughout the year?
• Who is in charge? Is there a coordinator in charge?
• How are parents and students notified of their at risk status?
Intervention for At Risk Students
• What types o f interventions are thought to be necessary?
• What interventions are available for at risk, socially promoted or retained students?
• How are interventions evaluated for effectiveness?
• Are there any district mandated intervention strategies or programs?
• How do the interventions connect to other school reform efforts?
• Are there different types o f interventions for students with differing needs?
• How are the interventions planned for an individual student?
• Are the interventions targeted for a specific area of need?
• Are the interventions individualized?
• What types o f on going formative assessments are used to m onitor student progress?
315
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• What are the programs available, i.e. Reading Recovery?
• Are systematic explicit strategies used to teach skills to at risk students?
• How are the interventions coordinated with the regular program?
• When are the interventions offered, i.e. extended day, extended year or alternative
classes?
• How are parents notified o f their child’s specific intervention needs?
• Are the interventions mandatory? How does a parent “opt out” of an intervention for
their child?
The Decision to Socially Promote or Retain a Student
• How is a student identified as subject to social promotion or retention?
• What notifications are used?
• Who is involved in the decision to socially promote or retain?
• Who is responsible for making the final decision?
• How are parents and students involved in the decision-making process?
• At what point in the school year is the decision to promote or retain made?
• What options are available in the decision-making process, i.e. conditional promotions or
retentions?
• How is the final decision made? Is a form used? Is the form a school generated or
district generated form?
• What is the appeal process?
• What reasons are given for social promotions?
• Are there approved reasons for social promotion listed anywhere?
• Are the reasons for social promotion listed anywhere listed on a form that stays with a
student’s file?
• Are the reasons for social promotion reported at the school site level? District level?
Post Retention or Social Promotion
• How are retentions and social promotions reported?
• Is the information reported to the district?
• What services are offered to socially promoted or retained students?
• Are retained student recycled through the same curriculum and instruction?
• What placement and grouping strategies are used?
• How are social promotion decisions communicated to the next teacher?
• How are retention decisions communicated to the next teacher?
• How are socially promoted students monitored?
• How are retained students monitored?
• What is done with social promotion and retention information?
• Is the information disaggregated?
• Is the information reported to the public?
Policy and Strategy Monitoring: Linking Policy to Practice
• How are the policies and strategies monitored for effectiveness?
• What data is generated?
• Where is the data stored?
• How is the data disaggregated?
• What is done with the data?
• What outside influences affect monitoring?
• What inside influences affect monitoring?
• Have the policies and strategies been modified? W hat process was/will be used?
316
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B
Conceptual Framework C
Description of State Policy
Local Policy on Pupil Promotion and Retention
• In addition to existing local policies for pupil retention and promotion the governing
board o f each school district and each county board o f education shall approve a policy
regarding the promotion and retention of pupils between the following grades:
1. Second grade and third grade
2. T hird grade and fourth grade
3. Fourth grade and fifth grade
4. The end o f intermediate grades and the beginning o f m iddle school grades
5. The end o f middle school grades and the beginning o f high school
• The policy shall base the identification of pupils ( I) between second grade and third
grade and (2) between third grade and fourth grade primarily on the basis o f the pupils’
level of proficiency in reading.
• The policy shall base the identification of pupils (3) between fourth grade and fifth grade,
(4) between the end o f intermediate grades and the beginning o f m iddle school grades,
and (5) between the end o f middle school grades and the beginning o f high school
primarily on the basis o f the pupils’ levels of proficiency in reading, English language
arts, and mathematics.
Criteria for Retention
• The local policy approved shall identify pupils who should be retained and who are at
risk of being retained in their current grades on the basis o f either o f the following:
1. Results o f the STRA test and the minimum levels o f proficiency recommended
by the State Board o f Education
2. Pupils’ grades and other indicators o f academic achievement designated by the
district.
Minimum Levels o f Pupil Performance on STAR
• The Superintendent o f Public Instruction shall recommend and the State Board of
Education shall adopt the levels o f pupil performance for the achievement test
administered under the STAR Program in reading, English language arts and
mathematics. The performance levels shall be the minimum levels required for
satisfactory performance in the next grade and shall be adopted only after the STAR tests
have been aligned to the State Board of Education adopted content and performance
standards.
Exception to Retention Criteria
• If either m easure (1) or (2), pursuant to Education Code §48070.5(bXSee III. Above),
identifies that a pupil is performing below the minimum standard for promotion, the pupil
shall be retained unless the pupil’s regular classroom teacher specifies in writing that
retention is not the appropriate intervention. This written determination shall specify:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. The reasons that retention is not appropriate for the pupil and recommendations
for interventions other than retention that, in the opinion o f the teacher, are
necessary to assist the pupil to attain acceptable levels o f academic achievement.
2. If the teacher’s recommendation to promote is contingent upon the pupil’s
participation in a remediation program, the pupil’s academic performance shall
be reassessed at the end o f the remediation program and the decision to retain or
promote shall be reevaluated at the time.
3. The teacher’s evaluation shall be provided to and discussed with the pupil’s
parent or guardian and the school principal before any finial determination of
pupil retention or promotion.
The New Local Policy
• Provide for parental notification when a pupil is identified as being at risk o f retention.
T his notice shall be provided as early in the school year as practicable. The policy shall
provide a pupil’s parent or guardian the opportunity to consult with the teacher or
teachers responsible for the decision to promote or retain the pupil.
• Provide a process through which the decision o f the teacher to retain or promote a pupil
m ay be appealed. If an appeal is made, the burden shall be on the appealing party to
show what the decision of the teacher should be overruled.
• Provide that pupils who are at risk o f being retained in t heir current grades be identified
as early in the school year, and as early in their school careers, as practicable.
• Indicate the manner in which opportunities for remedial instruction will be provided to
pupils who are recommended for retention or who are identified as being at risk of
retention.
• Specify the teacher or teachers responsible for the promotion or retention decision if the
pupil does not have a single regular classroom teacher.
• Be adopted at a public meeting of the governing board.
Exceeding Retention Criteria
• Nothing prohibits the retention of a pupil not included in grade levels identified pursuant
to Education Code § 48070.S (a), or for reasons other than those specified in Education
Code § 48070.5(b), if such retention is determined to be appropriate for that pupil.
N othing shall be constructed to prohibit a governing board from adopting promotion and
retention policies that exceed the criteria established in AB 1626.
Supplemental Instruction for Pupils in Grades 2 through 9 Who Have Been Retained
• In addition to existing requirements to offer summer school programs, the governing
board of each district maintaining any or all o f grades 2 to 9, inclusive, shall offer
programs o f direct systematic, and intensive supplemental instruction to pupils enrolled
in grades 2 to 9, inclusive, who have been retained pursuant to Education Code §
48070.5.
• A school district may require a pupil who has been retained to participate in supplemental
instructional programs. The district shall provide a mechanism for a parent or guardian
to decline to enroll his or her child in the program. Attendance in supplemental
instructional programs shall not be compulsory within the m eaning o f Education Code §
48200 (compulsory, full-time education).
318
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Programs o f Supplemental Instruction for Pupils in Grades 2 through 6 Who Have Low Scores
• The governing board o f each district maintaining any or all o f grades 2 to 6, inclusive,
may offer programs of direct, systematic, and intensive supplemental instruction to pupils
enrolled in grades 2 to 6, inclusive, who have low mathematics, reading, or written
expression scores to allow those pupils to achieve proficiency in standards adopted by the
State Board o f Education. Services offered shall be provided to pupils in the following
priority order:
1. Pupils who have been recommended for retention or who have been identified as
being at risk o f retention pursuant to Education Code § 48070.5 or school
district policies.
2. Pupils who have been identified as having a deficiency in mathematics, reading
or written expression based on the results o f STAR testing.
3. Each school district shall use results from tests administered under the STAR or
other evaluation criteria to identify eligible pupils pursuant to Education Code §
37252.5 (b).
Program Implementation
• Supplemental educational services shall be provided during summer school, after school,
on Saturdays, or during intersession, or in a combination of summer school, after school,
Saturday, or intersession instruction. Services shall not be provided during the pupil’s
regular instructional day if doing so would result in the pupil’s being removed form
classroom instruction in the core curriculum.
• An intensive remedial program in reading or written expression offered pursuant to AB
1639 shall, as needed, include instruction in phoneme awareness, systematic explicit
phonics and decoding, word attack skills, spelling and vocabulary, explicit instruction in
reading comprehension, writing and study skills.
• Each school district shall seek the active involvement o f parents and classroom teachers
in the development and implementation of supplemental instructional programs provided
pursuant to AB 1639.
Pupils Completing Grade 6 or Grade 9
• For the purposes of this section, a pupil shall be considered to be enrolled in a grade
immediately upon completion of the preceding grade. Summer school instruction may
be offered to pupils who were enrolled in grade 6 or grade 9 during the prior fiscal year
after the completion o f grade 6 to grade 9 respectively.
Legislative Intent
• It is the intent of the Legislature that pupils who are at risk of failing to meet state
adopted standards, or who are at risk o f retention, be identified as early in the school
year, and as early in their school careers as possible and be provided the opportunity for
supplemental instruction sufficient to assist them in attaining expected levels of academic
achievement.
319
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
Conceptual Framework D
Descriptive Comparison o f New Context
Social Promotion and Retention Policies and Strategies and Traditional Context
Social Promotion and Retention Policies and Strategies
Component Traditional New Context
Beliefs
An organizational belief that a
socially promoted or retained
student is the problem, not the
curriculum or instruction
being provided.
An organizational belief that
all students can learn and
achieve at high levels.
An organizational belief that
serious consequences will
motivate students.
An organizational belief that
students are motivated for
intrinsic reasons that do not
include the ‘Tear o f failure.”
An organizational belief that
students should be socially
promoted or retained based on
developmental immaturity
and/or lack o f exposure to the
curriculum and instruction.
An organizational belief that
students must master one
level of graded curriculum
before they can proceed to the
next.
Policy Context
There are no clear
organizational policies and
strategies.
There are well-publicized,
coherent policies and
strategies implemented
throughout the organization.
Grade Levels
Retention is m ost often used
at the kindergarten and first
grade levels.
Student achievement is
considered important at all
grade levels.
Sub Groups
There is a disparate impact on
sub groups o f students with
no concurrent changes in
curriculum, instruction or
strategies.
Any disparate impact on sub
groups o f students is tracked,
which results in an ongoing
analysis. Changes are made
to curriculum, instruction or
strategies as needed.
Curriculum, Instruction and
Programs
There exists no clear
curricular policy throughout
the organization.
The use o f standards-based
curriculum and instruction is
used throughout the
organization.
320
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Component Traditional New Context
Few research-based proven
programs and strategies are
used.
Research-based program s and
strategies are used.
Programs are not monitored
for effectiveness.
Programs and strategies are
evaluated for effectiveness.
Formative Assessment
There is little usage of
formative assessments to
drive curriculum and
instruction planning.
High-quality frequent
formative assessments, linked
to the standards, are used to
drive curriculum and
instruction planning.
Formative assessment is
rarely used to identify
students needing additional
support.
Formative assessment is
frequent and used to identify
students needing additional
support.
Summative Assessment
Standardized assessments or
other unreliable testing
instruments are used to make
promotion or retention
decisions.
Multiple measures, linked to
the standards, are used to
m ake promotion or retention
decisions.
Data are not always available
at the school site or classroom
level.
D ata are not available at all
levels.
Assessment Data
Data may not be
disaggregated.
Data are disaggregated.
Data are not used to make
curricular and instructional
decisions.
Data are used to make
curricular and instructional
decisions.
Students at-risk o f social
promotion or retention are not
identified early in their school
career or early within a school
year.
Students who need additional
assistance are identified as
early as possible.
Identification for Intervention
Students are identified based
on the use o f invalid or
unreliable measures.
Students are identified
through the use of frequent
formative assessments and
multiple measures.
Parents may not be notified
until the end o f the school
year.
Parents are notified early and
asked to be involved.
321
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Component Traditional New Context
interventions
There are few if any targeted
individualized interventions.
There are targeted
individualized interventions
for all students needing them.
A variety o f strategies m ay be
used with little coordination.
Systematic and explicit
strategies are used to teach
skills.
There are no clear strategies
and few research-based
interventions offered.
Research-based program s and
strategies are used that
support the high-quality
regular instruction.
The interventions are not
connected, or loosely
connected, to the regular
curriculum.
The interventions are highly
coordinated with the regular
curriculum.
Responsibility
The student is considered
responsible for his or her own
achievement, or lack of
achievement.
A shared responsibility for
learning and achievement
between the school, the
student and the parent that
includes rewards and
provisions for accountability.
Accountability
The student is solely
accountable.
The school and the student
share accountability.
Decision-making for Social
Promotion or Retention
There is little in the way o f
formal criteria or a process to
identify students.
Students are identified based
on multiple measures that are
well known to the student, the
parent and the school
community.
Decisions made to socially
promote or retain students are
based on arbitrary criteria and
made in an unclear process
that lacks clarity.
A clear policy context exists
for student identification,
intervention and decision
making with multiple options.
Notification
Parents may not be notified of
their child’s at risk status.
Parents are notified as early
as possible of their child’s at
risk status.
Parents may not be notified
promptly o f a decision to
socially promote or retain
their child. The decision may
not include any clear reasons
or basis for the decision.
Parents are notified o f the
reasons their child is to be
socially promoted or retained
as promptly as possible.
322
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Component Traditional New Context
Post Social Promotion or
Retention
Retained students are
recycled through the sam e
grade curriculum and
instruction without additional
support and targeted
individualized interventions.
Targeted individualized
interventions are continued
for the students. Placement
and curriculum decisions are
made to enhance the student’s
opportunity to learn.
Socially promoted students
are not monitored and m ay
receive little in the way o f
additional services the
following year.
Socially promoted students
are monitored and provided
continuous targeted
interventions.
Policy and Strategy
Monitoring
Accurate records o f social
promotions and retentions are
not maintained.
Accurate records o f both
social promotions and
retentions are maintained and
the data shared. The data are
used to assist in curriculum,
instruction, and school change
decisions.
323
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
Conceptual Framework E
Description of Standards-Based Reform
Standards
• Adopted rigorous standards reflect what students should know and be able to do at each
grade level.
• Written standards include performance descriptions, samples of student work and
explanations o f the requirements to m eet the standard.
• Expectations by grade level are aligned to the standards.
• Exhibits o f quality student work illustrating standards, along with the appropriate
standards and rubrics, are displayed and celebrated in classrooms and halls.
• Student work, with revision to improve performance, is in evidence throughout the
school.
• The student handbook and other school documents reflect the standards.
Assessment
• Both formative and summative assessments are aligned to the standards.
• Ongoing standards-based assessment, with specific feedback to students, is in evidence.
• Results o f assessments and the ongoing analysis o f student work are used to improve
student performance.
Instruction
• Instruction is organized around clear expectations and performance standards; and
students know what is expected of them.
• A variety o f grouping strategies are employed for different purposes to enhance student
learning.
• Students collaborate as active learners.
• Different instructional strategies are used to accommodate different modes o f learning.
• Instruction is aligned to the standards.
Curriculum
• Course content and curriculum are aligned to the standards.
• All students are engaged in a thinking/meaning-centered core curriculum that is focused
on student outcomes.
• The focus o f the curriculum is on depth over coverage.
• The scope and sequence integrates knowledge across subjects and grade levels, and uses
a constructivist view o f knowledge.
• There is an integrated view of the disciplines and o f academic, applied academic and
experiential knowledge so that all students learn how to think and make things work in
the real world.
• There are linkages connecting the curriculum to the outside world.
• Tasks involving complex real -world problem solving, requiring students to question,
explore, research, make decisions on, and communicate their findings, form the basis for
instruction and assessment.
• Extra classroom activities such as field trips and assemblies directly support and enhance
the instructional program and reflect a standards focus.
• Instructional and supplementary materials used for instruction are aligned to the
standards.
324
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Personalization
• Student support is an intrinsic part o f the school.
• Students receive individual attention.
• The school is part of a network o f community services.
• Support is provided for language m inority students.
Climate
• Recognition and celebration are given to students and staff for achievements and great
effort towards meeting performance standards.
• The learning environment is safe, orderly, caring and respectful.
• A school-wide discipline program focused on high expectations consistent with standards
is adopted and enforced.
• Parental involvement is evident; parents are welcome participants in student learning.
• Celebrations of student achievem ent are built into the school program and calendar.
Organization
• Time is organized to facilitate conversation, activity and research for both staff and
students, based on standards.
• Student outcomes drive school organization and culture.
• There is shared decision-making, emphasizing teacher professionalism, focused on
student outcomes.
• The school staff has more control over resources and the district office supports the
instruction and planning at the school site.
• Clusters, houses, tribes, core classes, or other means are used to create meaningful
opportunities for teacher-student relationships to grow and flourish and to promote
collaboration.
• The school develops, uses and m onitors a yearly plan with clear targets and strategies to
guide student achievement o f the standards.
Leadership
• A leadership team meets regularly, using effective problem solving and decision-making
strategies to successfully improve student performance.
• Decisions about classroom scheduling are directly related to student learning.
• Continuity exists among assignm ents, assessments, reports to parents and grades.
• The principal focuses on student work, performance and achievement during frequent
observations and follow-up feedback conferences with staff.
• Staff evaluation includes anecdotal evidence about staff im pact on student performance.
Teacher Professionalism
• The environment of the school emphasizes teacher professionalism.
• School structures are designed to allow teachers to target services to students and support
intensive learning.
• Teachers use time wisely to collaborate, grow professionally and implement change.
• Teachers are involved in redesigning school structures to support more intensive learning
by using processes for school assessm ent that evaluate opportunities to learn.
• Professional development is ongoing and part of the school culture and designed to
ensure that teachers are equipped to teach to high standards.
• Teachers are effective coaches.
• Teachers use teaching strategies that meet diverse needs o f the student in the school.
325
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Teachers have a deep understanding of the standards and use planned instructional
strategies designed to help students to meet them.
• Teachers use performance based and authentic assessment to improve teaching and drive
instruction, not as grade transition gateways.
Accountability
• An incentive system exists, with rewards and consequences, that motivates students to
reach the student performance standards.
• An incentive system exists for school faculty and other district employees that rewards
those who contribute to improved student performance and provides consequences for
those who fail to do so.
• The resource allocation system is linked to accountability for results.
• The organizational structure is designed to enable everyone to know what he or she is
responsible for and responsibilities are distributed in a way that corresponds to
accountabilities.
• Accountability for student achievement is shared between the school, the teacher and the
student.
326
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix E
Conceptual Framework F
Description of the Change Process
• The commitment to the new context social promotion and retention policies and
strategies and standards-based reform by the Governing Board, district and school
leadership is functionally and symbolically important.
• The initial motivation o f teachers and others is important, but resistance cannot be
allowed to stop the new context social promotion and retention policies and strategies and
standards-based reform.
• The content o f the reforms m atters as much as the process, and fidelity to the goals o f the
new context social promotion and retention policies and strategies and standards-based
reform are required.
• The new context social promotion and retention policies and strategies and standards-
based reform need to stay true to its original purpose and not become downsized.
• Fully implementing new context social promotion and retention policies and strategies
and standards-based reform requires a great deal of ongoing professional development
that values the knowledge and expertise o f the school’s teachers, but seeks to improve
them as well. The content o f the professional development is based on research, and the
training modules are based on Joyce and Shower’s (1980) levels o f impact: (a)
awareness, (b) concepts and organized knowledge, (c) principles and skills, and (d)
application and problem Solving.
• The new context social promotion and retention policies and strategies and standards-
based reform need to be seen as integral to the school and student achievement.
• Developing cross-role team s is needed to share expertise across a teaching staff, and to
ensure students who need it receive the necessary additional support they require.
• The new context social promotion and retention policies and strategies and standards-
based reform need to be viewed as a process, not an event, and need the commitment o f a
number o f years to be fully implemented.
327
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix F
Conceptual Framework A
Description oflntended Results
• Impact on organizational beliefs at the district and school levels.
• Impact on organizational priorities at the district and school levels.
• Impact on organizational practices at the district and school levels.
• Impact on instructional practices.
• Impact on student beliefs, motivation and learning.
• Impact on parent and community support.
• Impact on student achievement: increased student performance on multiple m easures of
achievement.
• Impact on social promotion and retention rates.
• Impact on drop out rates.
328
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix G
Case Study Guide
The purpose o f the C ase Study Guide is to provide a framework for data collection and data
reporting in Chapter Four o f your dissertation. Note that the conceptual frameowork for the case
study guide is Conceptual Framework B (CFb). During data collection, the conceptual framework
and the guiding questions should therefore serve as the focus when conducting formal and
informal interviews and w hile observing at the district and site levels. You do NOT need to ask
each o f the guiding questions during the interview, but instead use the guiding questions and the
conceptual framework (CFb) to make sure you are getting the information that you will need in the
data collection.
Your case study should be written up as a major part o f your chapter 4 o f your dissertation. The
headings and questions from Conceptual Framework B will serve as the guide the write-up o f your
district and school as a case study. You do not need to subm it a case study write-up except as it
appears in your chapter 4.
Staff Interviews
You are to formally interview at least one district leader, preferably the superintendent or an
assistant superintendent, one site principal and two teachers. For each interview provide a
description o f the interview with relevant background information about the person. Please
include, if applicable, th e title, the years o f experience, years o f experience in current position and
position prior to the current one. The individual researcher should create data collection
instruments for the form al interviews. Several methods w ere discussed during the EDPA 599
course. Remember to focus on the questions from CFb.
Student Interviews
You are to interview tw o socially promoted students, two retained students and two students who
were “caught up” . A student interview guide is included w ith questions. School and parental
permission must be secured prior to interviewing.
Observation
Observing for environm ental information should be a part o f all on site data collection days.
Valuable data can be gathered while informally observing and interviewing district and school
staff. The researcher should be collecting evidence from district and school records, district and
school policies, district an d school publications and by other means.
A formal observation should be conducted that includes th e school site, office support areas and at
least five classrooms. I f possible observe interventions or intervention classes both during the
regular and extended-school day. Observe the people and the visible signs in the environment of
the school. Conduct inform al interviews with staff and students. The individual researcher should
create data collection instrum ents for the formal observation.
329
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Case Study, continued)
Quantitative Data
If available, please secure the following data and include with your Case Study Guide materials:
Data Collected Data Collected
1999 API Report 1997 Social Promotion Rate
(Estimated, by grade, o f raw number of
students)
2000 API Report 1998 Social Promotion Rate
1998 SAT-9 Report 1999 Social Promotion Rate
1999 SAT-9 Report 2000 Social Promotion Rate
2000 SAT-9 Report 1997 Retention Rate (Estimated, by grade,
o f raw number o f students)
1997 Dropout Rates 1998 Retention Rate
1998 Dropout Rates 1999 Retention Rate
1999 Dropout Rates 2000 Retention Rate
2000 Dropout Rates
Indicate for every data set that the data was collected or if necessary indicate it the data was
unavailable. If possible, accept or make estimates, but clearly indicate that the data was estimated
and what information was used to make the estimation.
The API and the SAT-9 Reports should be collected for the school site. The social promotion and
retention rates required are for the school site and should be disaggregated by grade level.
330
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix H
Student Interview Guide
Background information:
1. What happens if you don’t meet grade level
standards by the end of the school year?
• What do they mean by standards?
• Describe (tell me about) how they know whether you’ve
met the standards?
• Do you worry about being retained?
• Do you worry about going to the next grade if you’re not
ready?
2. How do you get “caught up”?
• Are you getting any help at school to get to grade level if
you’re behind?
• Describe (tell me about) the type o f help you get?
• Who helps you? - Do you stay in your classroom for the
help or do you go out?
• How are your parents/guardians involved?
3. Do you believe that you are improving in your
academics?
• How do you know if you are doing better?
• Do you feel more successful now, or less?
• Is the help you are getting the reason for your
improvement (or not)?
4. Has your view of school changed?
• What did you used to think about school (before last
year)? What do you think now?
• What would help you to learn more?
• Who do you believe is most responsible for your
learning?
• To what do you attribute your success or failure?
• Are you trying your hardest? If not, what would motivate
you to do so?
• What kinds of strategies do you use to study and learn?
• What are your goals for this year? For the future?
331
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX I
Teacher Questionnaire
TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this study. We value vour contribution and will
strictly m aintain vour confidentiality. This study will provide educators and policy-makers in the
State o f California with valuable information. Please read each item carefully an d completely
before answering. For each item please circle the number that best corresponds to your view.
We would appreciate it if you provide the following demographic data for purposes o f the study
only. Again, we will maintain vour confidentiality.
Gender
Ethnicity
Years o f Experience
Years in C urrent Position
Grade Level Teaching Currently ___________________________
Courses Currently Teaching
(Departmentalized Only)
Credential/s
(Indicate if a Permit)
332
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
District Policies and Strategies Planning and
Design
For questions 1-15, consider the planning and
design stage of the district's policies and
strategies for social promotion and retention.
Don’t
Know
•
Disagree
Strongly
1
Disagree
Somewhat
2
Agree
Somewhat
3
Agree
Strongly
4
I. 1 am aware of the district’s policies and
strategies for social promotion and retention.
0 1 2 3 4
2. I am aware of the school’s policies and
strategies for social promotion and retention.
0 1 2 3 4
3. The district and this school share the same
vision for social promotion and retention.
0 1 2 3 4
4. The district expects standard-based teaching. 0 1 2 3 4
5. The district’s policies and strategics for social
promotion and retention have the goal of reducing
the rate of retention.
0 1 2 3 4
6. The district's policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have the goal of reducing
social promotion
0 1 2 3 4
7. The district's policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have the goal of reducing
dropout rates.
0 1 2 3 4
S. The district’s policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have the goal of
increasing student performance.
0 1 2 3 4
9. The district's policies and strategies call for the
use of multiple measures to assess student
performance.
0 1 2 3 4
10. The district’s policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have the goal of
increasing student motivation.
0 1 2 3 4
11. The district has a plan to identify acceptable
levels of student performance.
0 1 2 3 4
12. The district has a plan to identify students that
are not performing at acceptable levels.
0 1 2 3 4
13. The district has a plan to implement early
interventions for students performing below
acceptable levels.
0 1 2 3 4
14. The district believes that all students can meet
high standards.
0 1 2 3 4
IS. The district believes that the entire learning
community is responsible for helping students
succeed.
0 1 2 3 4
School Policies and Strategies Planning and
Don’t
Know
0
Disagree
Strongly
1
Disagree
Somewhat
2
Agree
Somewhat
3
Agree
Strongly
4
Design
For questions 16-28, consider the planning and
design stage of the school’s policies and
strategies for social promotion and retention.
16. The district believes the school site is
accountable for student achievement
0 1 2 3 4
17. The school expects teachers to use standards-
based teaching.
0 1 2 3 4
18. The school’s policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have the goal of reducing
the rate of retention.
0 1 2 3 4
19. The school's policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have the goal of reducing
social promotion
0 1 2 3 4
333
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20. The school's policies and strategics for social
promotion and retention have the goal of reducing
the dropout rate.
0 1 2 3 4
21. The school’s policies and strategics for social
promotion and retention have the goal of
increasing student performance.
0 1 2 3 4
22. The school’s policies and strategies call for the
use of multiple measures to assess student
performance.
0 1 2 3 4
23. The school's policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have the goal of
increasing student motivation.
0 1 2 3 4
24. The school uses clear criteria for identifying
acceptable levels of student performance.
0 1 2 3 4
25. The school has implemented early
interventions for students performing below
acceptable levels.
0 1 2 3 4
26. The school believes that all students can meet
high standards.
0 1 2 3 4
27. The school believes that the entire learning
community is responsible for helping students to
succeed.
0 1 2 3 4
28. The school holds teachers accountable for
student achievement.
0 1 2 3 4
Implementation
For qaestiou 29-59, consider the degree of
implementation of the policies aid strategies
for social promotion and retentioa.
DU*
know
0
Nft
1
Suncutal
hjfancm
2
b u y
hpfcmml
3
hqtim rt
d
4
29. Members of the organization share a vision
focused around the belief that all students can and
must learn.
0 1 2 3 4
30. Financial, human, and material resources are
aligned with the vision, mission and goals.
0 1 2 3 4
31. Specific, multiple criteria are used to make a
decision as to whether to retain or promote a
student.
0 1 2 3 4
32. A specific process is consistently used to make
a decision as to whether to retain or promote a
student.
0 I 2 3 4
33. Students who are in danger of being retained
are identified early in their school careers.
0 1 2 3 4
34. Students who are in danger of being retained
arc identified early in the school year.
0 1 2 3 4
35. The district and school policies are aligned
with the state policies for promotion and retention.
In addition, ail strategies and procedures are legal.
0 1 2 3 4
36. All students have an equal opportunity to
succeed under the promotion and retention
policies. The physical environment provides
students with equal and easy access to a wide
variety of materials necessary for learning.
0 1 2 3 4
37. The policies outline procedures for notifying
parents as soon as the decision is made that their
child is in danger of being retained. The
communication with the parent is then on-going
throughout the development and implementation
of an intervention plan.
0 I 2 3 4
38. Curriculum, instruction, materials, and
expectations are aligned to standards.
0 1 2 3 4
334
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39. Curriculum and instruction arc based on
purposeful planning. Planning is driven by results
of assessment, and helps determine:
1. what to teach
2. when to introduce skills and concepts
3. appropriate use of instructional and
assessment strategies, and techniques
that integrate tasks based on complex,
real-world experiences, requiring
problem solving, exploration, research,
decision making, communication, and
questioning.
4. how to teach for transference and
generalization.
0 1 2 3 4
40. Instruction includes the following
components:
1. curriculum delivery organized around
clear expectations and performance
standards; students know what the
expectations are;
2. dialogue among students and between
students and teachers; dialogue
stimulates thinking and questioning;
3. opportunities for active, student
engagement in meaningful work, and
products and performances that are
reflective of the standards
4. planned experiences to help students
analyze their own metacognition and
motivation; students are taught self-
regulation strategies;
0 I 2 3 4
41. Instruction is individualized and targeted;
different modes of learning provide
accommodations to help all students achieve the
standards.
0 1 2 3 4
42. The learning environment is safe and orderly.
The environment reflects a sense of caring, trust
and respect between students as well as adults and
students.
0 1 2 3 4
43. On-going, research-based, and focused
professional development is planned and
implemented.
0 I 2 3 4
44. Assessment is aligned to the standards,
curriculum and instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
45. Frequent, formative assessments are based on
multiple measures These assessments are used to
develop and monitor a yearly plan with clear
targets and strategies that guide student
achievement of the standards.
0 1 2 3 4
46. Specific feedback is consistently given to
students; assessment is ongoing throughout year.
0 1 2 3 4
47. Grading policies and practices are uniform
throughout the school.
0 1 2 3 4
48. Students “self-assess” their work regularly.
Self-assessment is based on students’
understanding of the standards.
0 1 2 3 4
49. Targeted, supplementary intervention
strategies exist and are uniquely combined to
design the individualized learning plans that help
prevent the retention of identified students.
0 1 2 3 4
SO . Intensive academic support is provided to all
identified students that target key subjects such as
literacy and math as well as the students'
individual learning deficiencies.
0 1 2 3 4
335
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
S1. Comprehensive parent education classes are
provided to parents of identified students. These
classes target student achievement, home to
school articulation, parenting skills, and parent
participation in student's academic progress.
0 1 2 3 4
52. Alternative programs exist for all identified
students to prevent retained students from being
'recycled* through the same program and
curriculum as the previous year.
0 I 2 3 4
53. Scheduling has been modified or altered to
maximize attendance and achievement for
identified students.
0 I 2 3 4
54. Promotion and retention decision-making is
based on achievement of proficiency towards
standards.
0 1 2 3 4
55. Assessment is aligned to standards. 0 1 2 3 4
56. Assessment is aligned to instruction Schools
provide instruction in the knowledge and skills
being measured by the test Parents are informed
about how they can help at home and in the
schools so students are well prepared.
0 1 2 3 4
57. Reliable measures exist that accurately
measure student progress towards district and
state standards.
0 1 2 3 4
58. Students with disabilities are included in
statewide or districtwide assessments, unless the
student's individualized education program team
(1EP team) determines that modifications of the
assessments are necessary.
0 I 2 3 4
59. LEP students are included in statewide or
districtwide assessments unless there is a valid
educational justification for their exclusion. In
situations in which students are excluded from a
particular statewide or district assessment,
comparable information about these students’
academic progress must be collected.
0 1 2 3 4
Implementation Process
For questions 60-85, consider the
chaage/impiemeatatioa of the district/school's
policies and strategies for social promotion and
retention.
Don’t
Know
0
Disagree
Strongly
1
Disagree
Somewhat
2
Agree
Somewhat
3
Agree
Strongly
4
60. The district’s social promotion/retention
initiative was driven by the state policy changes.
0 1
2
3 4
61. District office support was a key component in
assisting sites in development and/or
implementation of the new social promotion and
retention policies and strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
62. Teacher participation throughout the design
process was high.
0 1 2 3 4
63. Teacher participation was at a high level
throughout the implementation process.
0 1 2 3 4
64. The design of the program was for-reaching
and effective in stimulating teacher interest and
engagement
0 1 2 3 4
65. The new social promotion and retention
policies and strategies were based on adapting
already developed, outside programs to the
district.
0 1 2 3 4
66. Suitable attention to details was paid during
implementation. 0 1 2 3 4
336
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67. Classroom training and specific assistance was
(is) oagoing and conducted in a timely manner.
0 I 2 3 4
68. All teachers are committed to the success of
the social promotion and retention policies and
strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
69.1 have some or many ideas about something
related to the policies and strategies that would
allow them to work even better.
0 I 2 3 4
70.1 know a great deal about the policies and
strategies specifics.
0 1 2 3 4
71.1 am mostly concerned with how the policies
and strategies will affect me.
0 1 2 3 4
72.1 would like to help other faculty members use
the policies and strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
73.1 am concerned about conflict between my
interests and responsibilities in relation to the
social promotion and retention policies and
strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
74.1 am very interested in knowing students’
attitudes toward the social promotion and
retention policies and strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
75.1 am concerned about revising my classroom
structure and/or curriculum to facilitate the social
promotion and retention policies and strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
76.1 am concerned whether or not the social
promotion and retention strategies are helping
students.
0 I 2 3 4
77.1 would like to know more about the policies
and strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
78. The policies and strategies do not affect my
classroom, and as a result. 1 have not concerned
my self with the details or specifics.
0 1 2 3 4
79.1 would like to know how my teaching
strategies are supposed to change as 1 incorporate
the social promotion and retention policies and
strategies within mv classroom.
0 1 2 3 4
80.1 would like to modify our use of the social
promotion and retention policies and strategies
based on the experiences of our students.
0 1
2
3 4
81. Teachers arc involved in the change, focus and
development of suitable materials to support the
policies and strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
82. Teachers are developing mastery of the
procedures and specifics of the program.
0 1 2 3 4
83. School leadership support was a key element
in assisting this site in the implementation of the
new social promotion and retention policies and
strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
84. Community support far the policies and
strategies is strong.
0 1 2 3 4
85. The need for the policies and strategies for
social promotion and retention was great.
0 I 2 3 4
Imoact
For questions 86-180, consider the impact the
district/school's policies and strategies for
social promotion and retention have had.
Don’t
Know
0
Disagree
Strongly
1
Disagree
Somewhat
2
Agree
Somewhat
3
Agree
Strongly
4
86. The district’s policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have had an impact on
the school’s policies.
0 1 2 3 4
337
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87. The district and school policies and strategies
are aligned.
0 1 2 3 4
88. Effective teaching strategies are used to
support standards-based curriculum.
0 1 2 3 4
89. My curriculum has changed to meet the
requirement of teaching based on standards.
0 1 2 3 4
90 The school's policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have reduced the rate of
retention.
0 1 2 3 4
9 1. The school’s policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have reduced the rate
social promotion.
0 1 2 3 4
92. The school’s policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have reduced the dropout
rate.
0 1 2 3 4
93. The school’s policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have increased student
performance.
0 1 2 3 4
94. The school’s policies and strategies for social
promotion and retention have increased student
motivation.
0 1 2 3 4
95. The school has clear criteria for identifying
acceptable levels of student performance.
0 1 2 3 4
96. The school has implemented early
interventions for students performing below
acceptable levels.
0 1 2 3 4
97. All students can meet the standards. 0 1 2 3 4
98. There is a shared sense of responsibility for
student achievement between the school, die
teacher, the parent and the student
0 I 2 3 4
99. The school holds teachers accountable for
student achievement
0 1 2 3 4
100. The district holds the school accountable for
student achievement
0 1 2 3 4
338
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Addressing social promotion and retention issues: A look at one middle school in the process of reform

PDF

A substitute teacher preservice staff development program: A case study of the Los Angeles County Office of Education

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Black male perception of opportunity structures

PDF

An analysis of student -level resources at a California comprehensive high school

PDF

Essential elements of superintendent training and preparation programs as indicated by practicing superintendents in the state of California

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

PDF

A longitudinal look at what's important in comprehensive reform: A case study

PDF

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

PDF

How districts and schools utilize data to improve the delivery of instruction and student performance: A case study

PDF

Cognitive and motivational factors that affect the achievement of elementary students on standardized tests

PDF

A pilot study to investigate the relationship between student self -regulatory resource management strategies and academic achievement in a Web-based hybrid graduate nursing course

PDF

Alternative dispute resolution: An effective strategy for reducing special education due process hearings in California

PDF

Factors of a successful transition into a new superintendency

PDF

An analysis of the impact a district design on the use of data has on student performance

PDF

Design, implementation and adequacy of data utilization in schools: A case study

PDF

A case study of instructional supervision, including teacher evaluation, and the impact on teacher practice

PDF

Implementation and levels of use of technology plans in a Southern California K--12 district and its middle school

PDF

Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of Christian African university students

Asset Metadata

Creator Price, Sally Ann (author)

Core Title A case study of social promotion and retention policies, strategies, and programs

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,education, guidance and counseling,Education, Secondary,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Dwyer, David (committee chair), Gothold, Stuart (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-160530

Unique identifier UC11334749

Identifier 3054794.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-160530 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3054794-0.pdf

Dmrecord 160530

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Price, Sally Ann

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