1

WHEN DOES RETENTION HAVE THE GREATEST POSITIVE IMPACT ON A STUDENT‟S ACADEMIC SUCCESS?

Thesis

Submitted to

The Masters of Arts in Education Program

Wittenberg University

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree

Masters of Arts in Education

Judith Ann Kosiba

Wittenberg University

Springfield, Ohio

2008

2

WHEN DOES RETENTION HAVE THE GREATEST POSITIVE IMPACT ON A STUDENT‟S ACADEMIC SUCCESS?

Approved by:

Stefan Broidy, Ph.D. Committee Chair

Josephine Wilson, Ph.D. Committee Member

Barbara S. Arnold Committee Member

3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements Page 4

Definition of Terms Page 5

Introduction Page 6

Literature Review Page 9

Methodology Page 23

Data Collection and Analysis Page 24

Teacher Survey Page 30

Discussion and Alternative Approaches Page 37

Summary Page 45

References Page 48

Appendices Page 55

Appendix A: Data Sheet

Appendix B: Correlations

Appendix C: Multiple Regressions

Appendix D-G: Chi-Square Tests and Charts 1-15

Appendix H: Teacher Survey

Appendix I: Student Study Educational Plan

Appendix J: Student Assistance Team - Promotion/Retention

Appendix K: High Stakes Override Parent Consent Form

Appendix L: Demographics of Alliance City & Alliance City Schools

4

Acknowledgements

I‟d like to personally thank Superintendents Steven Stohl and Peter Basil, and the Alliance School Board for allowing me to review school files in order to conduct my research and to obtain the information needed for this thesis. I would also like to thank Mrs. L. Poole, from the high school guidance office for her time and effort in allowing me access to the file room and answering questions. To my thesis committee: Dr. Josephine Wilson, Dr. Stefan Broidy and Mrs. Barb Arnold: thank you for your patience, knowledge, guidance and support throughout the year. Last, but not least I‟m deeply grateful for my family and friends who believed in me and gave me encouragement to finish my quest, especially when I stopped believing in myself.

Thank You!!!!!!

5

Definition of Terms

1. Retention- The act of being held back (normally being placed in the same grade

for a second year) according to the standards set by the school district in which a

student is enrolled.

2. Social Promotion- The act of passing a student to the next grade level, even

though he/she does not meet the academic standards set by the school districts

grading guidelines.

3. Academic Success- Success a student achieves when he/she completes the

required credits or grade card scores executed by their local school district.

4. Dropout- A student who withdraws from a school system before completing

their high school graduation requirements.

5. Red-shirted- When a school system or parent holds a student back to repeat the

same grade not for academic reasons but for physical qualifications in the sports

field. This usually takes place between 8th/9th grades.

6. Alternatives- One or more possible strategies that could be used to receive

academic success in a school setting, other than retention or social promotion.

7. Team Approach- An approach that promotes a student‟s academic success by

having a team, consisting of educators, parents, administrators, and the

students working together.

8. Half-year step- Placing the student in the same grade but a half year ahead, such

as 3rd grade to 3.5 grade. The student is showing he/she has received some of the

learning in the 3rd grade, but was not able to retain all that was needed to pass. 6

Introduction

This researcher has observed throughout 30 years of teaching, in public and private schools, a major push towards social promotion of students in the middle grades, versus effective alternative courses of action, or retention, and a lack of retention in the lower grades, because we do not want students to be traumatized. There is an apparent hesitation on the part of administrators, teachers, and parents to retain students who fail to meet the minimum established academic standards for advancement at all grade levels.

To surmise that he/she will catch up or once in high school will then earn the credits to graduate is playing Russian roulette with a student‟s education and future success in life.

Through this research I want to examine if and when there is an optimal time retention that will create a positive impact on a student‟s academic success.

In the case of social promotion, I believe that failure is overlooked and students are passed on to the next grade, regardless of whether the student has simply refused to do the work or has not learned the material. Once a student enters high school, retention placement is then controlled by an established process of earned credits, which automatically promotes or retains students within a specified grade level. This is when students‟ academic achievements will ultimately manifest themselves in either successes or academic failures. The response from a majority of teachers, with whom I have debated this problem during my career, seem to wipe their hands clean of the situation, because their professional opinion is rarely taken into account. As a result they are highly reluctant to take a strong stance on putting forth what appears to be best for the student.

Administrators tend to do what they need to do to assess the problem quickly and to 7 satisfy the parents/teachers who are complaining about retention. No one seems to research and implement a successful package for students who don‟t make the grade.

If we continue this trend of delaying the implementation of effective alternatives to social promotion of academically challenged students, it must be asked; are we doing justice to students and the educators who will educate them in the future? Could we promote better academic success at an earlier age through adherence to academic standards for retention verses social promotion, thereby leading to healthier academic achievement throughout students‟ educational endeavours?

The goal of this study is to understand and develop information for retention and social promotion which will provide insight for administrators, teachers, and parents in determining how and when students can achieve academic success, and if they are to be retained or socially promoted. The time when students should be retained needs to be studied so the student will benefit from the retention. When is retention needed? Is it between K-4th grade, middle school 5th or 6th, or lastly junior high, which is 7th or 8th? If retention does not give students success in a specific grade level, then what alternatives could be used instead (Fine, 1991)?

This proposal will examine data about high school students who have been retained and or placed, sometime in their educational career that attended the Alliance City School

System in Alliance, Ohio (Stark County). Information collected on achievement in academic areas while looking at other areas such as: discipline, attendance, intervention, age, and transient moves, will help determine whether they are factors in success or failure of a retained or placed student. The results will enable administrators, educators, and parents to professionally make the best decisions for their students‟ academic 8 program, and success throughout their educational careers. This knowledge will then allow educators to make better decisions on how to help students catch up to their peers, and determine if there is a specific time students should be retained to be successful in their educational endeavour.

9

Literature Review

Today, educational researchers have long debates over holding students back or socially promoting them to the next grade and whether it will have negative effects on their learning. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) seemed to motivate districts in helping those who are left behind, but has left open the answer to the question; do they help these students succeed academically? According to recent research, there are over 2 million students held back every year in the United States (Jimerson, Pletcher, & Kerr,

2005), which raises the question, is retention or social promotion the best solution for success? Twenty-five years of research disputes these alternatives and this failing course of action.

Schools by the 1980‟s were considered successful with over 85% of students graduating and continuing on to college. But by 1983 as stated by President Reagan, we had a public school monopoly and a failure to strive for excellence (Mondale & Patten,

2002). Suddenly, the public was not confident in the American school system, raising the need for school reform. The administration‟s report, A Nation at Risk, connected the

American public‟s worries about the nation‟s economic future to the performance of its schools (in Boyd and Kerchner, 1988, p.1). The report found over 40% of the course work didn‟t adequately prepare students for college or the work force. School surveys and agencies stated schools were in a positive upswing, but the Reagan Administration‟s report stated otherwise. This then led to a series of school reforms.

The reforms were centered on more courses in traditional learning; longer school days; more homework and harder graduation requirements. Control of school decisions shifted from the federal government to the states resulting in the development of 10 standardized testing. The absence of reference to school district organization and bureaucracy as part of the reform of public education was no oversight. Rather, the emphasis on school-level autonomy, and state regulation of standards, represented a response to judgments that school district organization and bureaucracy had failed to resolve, and may even have contributed indirectly to the current collapse of educational productivity among American‟s public schools (Malen & Theobald, 2000, p. 283).

Since the shift from the government favoring the districts to favoring state control, we have lost that individual agenda that districts possessed. These provided priorities to various programs, which could have had a direct influence in a school district, providing a successful educational program as a result of the shift in control. Retention began to increase; in the 80‟s with over 2 million K-12 students being retained each year. Studies indicate retention increased the risk by nearly 40% that a student held back once, will drop out of school. If a student is held back twice, there is a 90% chance he/she will drop out of school. Today, the number of teenagers dropping out of high schools each year is approximately1.2 million. The estimated cost of retaining students in the U.S. each year is 10 billion dollars (Hennick, 2008, p. 56).

By the 1990‟s, if a student was not satisfied with the public school in his/her area, they could attend magnet or charter schools which were becoming popular. These magnet or charter schools appeared to be attractive alternatives as their operations were being addressed as a corporation, with improvements being driven by traditional corporate business practices. This fostered competition and led students to learning and being held accountable for their education (ABC News, 2006). Boston charter schools developed rigid retention policies, which motivated students to work hard during the school year. 11

Any student who received a grade lower than 70% in two courses for the year, was required to repeat. Retention was a real threat to students. (Hennick, 2008, p.56)

During this period cities brought in private corporations to run their schools. By doing this, they were able to bypass government restrictions and develop schools, such as the

Tesseract in Baltimore, which were “out of this world.” (Mondale & Patton, 2002) Many such schools competed for profits, which included the teachers, however in the long run, charter and public schools still were not raising scores and bringing in quality education.

During this time, we started to see a greater number of students falling behind.

Estimates vary, but by the late eighties or early nineties, about one youngster in five failed before entering middle school or junior high (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber,

1994, p. 3). With many more students falling behind and retention becoming a solution to help students catch up, the debate began on pros and cons of retention. Does this process really help students catch up or are they suffering harm and humiliation? If one were to walk into an eighth-grade classroom, where only a fifth of the students can read and write at grade level, one would quickly grasp why support of holding students back was growing (Hennick, 2008, p.55). Shouldn‟t this produce harm and humiliation for eighth grade students who couldn‟t perform at their own grade level?

Evidence regarding retention suggests that most students will again decline in achievement two or three years after being retained, and most students will not catch up to their non-retained peers (Canter & Carey, 1998). Retention has a negative effect on success in all areas of study, with reading achievement being lost the most (Canter &

Carey, 1998). Students who have been held back are more likely to drop out of school, and long-term negative effects have been noted (Jameson, Letcher, & Kerr, 2005). 12

Students have had health problems, low self-esteem, emotional distress, and have shown increased incidences of smoking, drinking, drug abuse, suicide, and violent behaviors.

They appear unable to have good peer relationships or strong family support, and may also have higher incidences of early sexual experiences (Jimerson, Pletcher, & Kerr

2005).

Social promotion is an unpopular policy in education. It is a practice where you promote a student to the next grade when they have not yet mastered the curriculum at their current grade. Most of the research on social promotion shows the same problems as retention: it increases dropout rates, does nothing to increase student achievement, and creates graduates who lack the necessary skills for employment (Johnson & Rudolph,

2001, p.2). A statement from the U.S. Department of Education in 1999 said, “Being promoted without regard to effort or achievement or retained without extra assistance sends a message to students that little is expected from them, that they have little worth, and they do not warrant the time and effort it would take to help them be successful in school” (Johnson & Rudolph, 2001, p.3). It is often thought to be a phenomenon of the liberal 60”s, but social promotion has been practiced widely in the twentieth century

(Shepard & Smith, 1984, p.4) and into the twenty-first century by many school districts.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) saw social promotion as one of the most obvious and direct means to redress lax standards. Promoting students, regardless of their achievement, is a blatant disregard for standards. This type of promotion is blamed for the current educational disarray, and for employers complaining that they cannot trust a school diploma as being a certificate of basic competence for that student. In the Commissions report, teachers stated if students were held back in their 13 class until they mastered the grade, students would arrive at middle school or high school incapable of doing reading and basic math (Shepard & Smith, 1984 p.2-3).

Social promotion is not a preventive measure. The problem of low achievement is already present. Placing students in the next higher level of education does not address the basic problem, and is more likely to add to it. Unfortunately it does not help to close the learning gap for the majority of students who are placed into the next grade level.

Superintendent Williams of the Waterford School District (not its real name) had a vision to help students reach their highest academic potential. Social promotion was a major obstacle to this goal, and he would not condone or practice this as an alternative for retention. As a result, it was eliminated from his school district‟s five-year plan. The district was not going to promote students socially. They needed measures so that the students would not slip through the cracks. Students would be held accountable for their skills (Shepard & Smith, 1989, pp. 152-153).

Another concern associated with social promotion, involving students, has been high stakes testing (HST). Students are retained in eighth grade as a result of their testing scores. Educators discovered that students did demonstrate a decrease in knowledge and skills when they were socially promoted (Allensworth, 2005). The one aspect that did not decrease was the students‟ self-esteem, because students did not realize they were losing their academic skills. According to Johnson & Rudolph, (2001), socially promoting students could hurt the motivated students. Why should they try so hard when achievement doesn‟t count and anyone will be promoted? I surmise that if retention and social promotion have negative effects on a child‟s learning, we need to idnetify alternatives. 14

If retention and social promotion have negative affects on a child‟s learning, we need alternatives to take their place. We need positive interventions and preventions strategies for students to succeed. Addressing positive strategies, by research, professional development for teachers, expanded learning options, and interventions that help poor performance and intensify learning, can be beneficial in developing positive teaching skills. Placing students, relaxing academic standards, and having no planned intervention strategies is not a standard that needs to continue, but all this has been happening in educational institutions (Johnson & Rudolph, 2001).

One strategy for elementary/junior high, which seemed promising, was a half-grade situation. The student retained will attend the grade he/she was in, plus a half (Example,

3rd grade would be 3.5.) Students start the year in a positive situation because they know parts of the 3rd grade academics; so they feel comfortable.

If placed into 4th grade, when they have academically failed 3rd grade, students are confident, because they are with their peers, reviewing 3rd grade material. But it soon becomes apparent academically that they are behind and you are now into a negative scenario. In this program, after the half year, the student should be able to be placed in 4th grade, with a half year of 4th grade knowledge. Being successful in the beginning of 4th grade will give them confidence to complete the remainder of the year. They will be monitored to make sure further interventions are not needed. They would only be placed in another half/year grade if they were in danger of retention again (Doyle, 2004).

In the previous study and others, grades from a retained or placed student were evaluated. Research, which analyzed the grades in which a student was retained, did not show an overall positive intervention on retention; it did demonstrate better short and 15 long term outcomes for retention of the lower grades versus the upper grades (Silberglitt,

Jimerson, Burns, & Appleton, 2005). Investigating whether the timing of grade retention makes a difference develops my hypothesis that retention needs to be done early in a student‟s educational career to show any positive affects on academic success.

No one disputes the serious problems of retention. Many articles and books have stated that we do not have sufficient research that supports retention as a prevalent pedagogically sound strategy. Why not? Is it because if we do we are showing failure in the school, teachers, and student? Schools keep some form of statistics on their retention levels, but rarely let this information become public, and there are no comprehensive national statistics on retention per se. The Bureau of the Census will monitor children‟s grade in school by relation to their age (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber).

The majority of research that I have studied indicates that retention does little in accomplishing what it is meant to do. Gale Thomson stated that research, even at the elementary level, concluded that retention does not improve academics in low achieving students, which is contrary to the findings of my research (Thomson, 1998, p.1). Most findings do not follow through with their research after a couple of years to see the long term information which is needed to make a decision of whether it was worth it or not in retaining students. I disagree with these findings. What I do agree with is that retention studies need to be addressed in an individualized manner in local districts. There are significant variables that can be studied, which need to be addressed in studying the effects of retention, since they vary from school district to school district.

In contrast to American practices with retention, zero is the number of elementary-age students held back in the U.K., Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Japan (Hennick, 2008, 16 p.56). In a typical end-of-school-year news article, a community would be held back because „they can‟t read at a first grade level‟ (USA Today, 15-17 April 1988, p.1).

Consistent with the view that retention will repair deficient skills and improve student‟s life chances, the principal in this report explained her decision: “In years past, those students would have been promoted to second grade. Then they might have dropped out in five, six, or seven years” (Shepard & Smith, 1989, p.34). Other first grade teachers were passing those weak students to second grade, justifying the fact that they somewhat had their sight words, phonics, and alphabet. Mary Lee Smith, a professor at Arizona

State University, suggests that because of the overwhelming evidence against retention, she couldn‟t think of a situation where a student should be held back. “They have a better chance of picking up something in the long run if they passed than if they‟re failed,” says

Smith (Hennick, 2008, p.56).

If you only somewhat have the knowledge, and you are in hopes of maybe picking something up, isn‟t that going to affect you in the following grades? Students have stated since the 80‟s that being retained is the third most stressful thing besides going blind and losing a parent. In 2001, the study was replicated and retention now tops the list. But isn‟t the stress coming from not possessing the knowledge of the previous grade? This means you‟re already starting a new year in failure, and you can‟t compete with the other students at that grade level. (Hennick, p.56)

The National Center for Education Statistics in 1996 reported that the percentage rate of 12th graders having repeated any grade was 16.8%. The grades where most students were retained were kindergarten 2.8%, first grade at 5.1% and second grade at 2.7%. A study from the National Academy of Sciences states that the retention rate might even be 17 higher. They looked at six to eight year olds in the 80‟s and 90‟s and found that by the time they reached nine to eleven years of age, 30 % of them were no longer in an appropriate grade for their age group. The study also stated that some of this could be possible because of a delayed start into kindergarten (Kelly, 1999, p.1). The struggle teachers do not want is having a 15-year-old sitting in a 7th grade classroom, yet they do not want to pass a student who has failed academically. So we continually see this swing back and forth from retention to social promotion.

One major concern when holding students back is whether this will lead to higher dropout rates in a school district. No one will disagree one dropout is too many, but they do disagree on how many there are. From a report by Lawrence Mishel and Joydeep Roy of the Economic Policy Institute, “conventional wisdom has held that nearly a third of all students-and about half of black and Hispanic students-drop out of high school”

(American Educator, Notebook, 2006, p.2-3). But they contend that, “ 80 to 83 percent of all students, 69 to 75 percent of black students, and 61 to 74 percent of Hispanic students graduate with a regular diploma.” This is a large disparity between findings primarily due to the different methodologies of the researchers. A difference between the two opinions is; one is based on studies that compare the number of ninth graders to the number of graduates four years later. However, Mishel and Roy, examined census data from the

National Education Longitudinal Study, which tracked nationally a sample of eighth graders from the 1988 to 2000 school years. Both are sensible ways of tracking dropout rates but many researchers agree more data is needed.

One point both reports agreed on is that there has not been any evidence showing that tougher standards and exit exams have driven up the dropout rate. Conventional wisdom 18 is that the dropout rate has been steady since the 1990‟s, but Mishel and Roy feel that the dropout rate has been slowly increasing since the 1960‟s (American Educator, Notebook,

2006). Exit exams might not drive the drop out rate up, but is it driving up the rate of how many students exit high school with a graduation diploma?

An update by the National Educational Longitudinal Study data states in 2008 the national graduation rate stands at 82 percent, with African-Americans‟ and Hispanics‟ dropout rate being 75 percent. A five-year study from John Hopkins University by researcher John Balfanz does paint a pretty picture for dropouts. He reveals, “1,700 high schools in this country are graduating a mere 60 percent of the students who enrolled as a freshman” (Sturgeon, 2008, p.24). Any way you look at it the dropout rate is still unacceptable. And according to Bob Wise, former governor of West Virginia, “80 percent of jobs in our society require post-secondary education and of the 1.2 million students of the class of 2007 that did not graduate, it will cost this country $300 billion in lost income alone over their lifetimes” (Sturgeon, 2008, p.24). This type of economic loss affects everyone in our country, just not the educator.

In some studies, being retained once increases one‟s risk of dropping out by 40 to

50%. Being retained twice almost guarantees a student will drop out (Davidson, 2008).

What I am finding in research literature on retention is absence of the effects or long-term consequences. In the Holmes‟ review, for example, only eighteen of sixty-three controlled studies provided any data three or more years past the retention year. None followed retained students in high school (Shepard & Smith, 1989, pg. 34). When they talk about the correlation of evidence in retention and dropping out, it always comes out that it increases risk instead of decreases risk of dropping out. This is the why this 19 research looked at the findings of high school students and the effects of what the retention did to them throughout their school career. In the Alliance City School system I found the opposite to be true. Students, who were retained in their school careers, demonstrated they improved academically and graduated.

Kindergarten retention is generally not a retention that is associated with the stigma of being held back. Many students are held back for maturity instead of a lack of academic skills. Retention in kindergarten has been considered as just being an extra year of preparation before first grade. One study examined three types of this early retention: transition kindergarten, developmental, and just straight repeating of the class. All of the above two-year kindergarten retentions have a common purpose, which is to provide an appropriate curriculum for children judged not to be ready for the learning demands of first grade (Shepard & Smith, 1989, p. 65).

Who is the best candidate for this type of retention? Many believe that the transition classes are intervention for pre-special education students who have a low academic prognosis, or the child who has normal intelligence but needs more time to mature. Scott and Ames argued that, “Repeating should be the solution for children who are too immature for the work of a grade in question and thus need to be older to succeed.” They dismissed negative findings from other studies that stated, “repeating could fix low intelligence, emotional problems, or other difficulties that could cause poor work in students.”(Scott & Ames 1969, p.434) So basically they eliminated all cases except those for immaturity and did not provide appropriate data for review in the other studies. In studying whether the effects of retention work between pre-special education students and students with normal intelligence, it is hard to say because they are quite different. A 20 special education student may not, in most cases, be of normal intelligence. This type of student may battle low intelligence as well as other problems such as immaturity, discipline, or health related issues. The child with normal intelligence would only have one negative behavior, immaturity.

Even though Shepard and Smith did find some adequate controlled studies that gave an advantage to transition and developmental groups being used as retention for kindergartners, none were backed up by studies past the first grade, or showed any noticeable improvement beyond the fourth grade. Many suburban school districts delay a child‟s entrance into kindergarten in hopes of eliminating the retention process. This practice allows the student to gain maturity and reduces the risk of retention. Those who were delayed were mostly boys, and some were placed in special education programs. A study of this practice was published in 1995 in the journal Remedial and Special

Education. It concluded that students were not any more likely to be retained than their peers, who entered school at the appropriate age (Thompson, 1998, p.2). Smith and

Shepard surmised that “ retention whether it is called by a special name (transition), occurs for special reason (immaturity), or takes place in kindergarten rather than later, is still retention – and still ineffective” (Shepard & Smith 1989, pg 76).

Prior research studies found that teachers who were asked specifically on kindergarten retention cannot recall a single time when retaining a child became a bad experience for a child. Many elementary teachers feel that retaining a student is the best thing a parent or teacher can do for that child. There is no stigma attached towards retention in kindergarten, as could be in higher grades. When done early enough, it is less likely to affect a child‟s self esteem (Logsdon 2008, p.1). Teachers are able to use their own 21 personal experiences and beliefs to approach parents in convincing them it would be good for their child. It comes down how positive parents and teachers are towards retention, to show the child how beneficial this will be for them. The more positive a child can be when entering into a retention experience, the better chance they will have in improving their skills. It will only get harder for students if they are held back in later years, both academically and socially. But if educators are not capable of answering the question of why the student didn‟t learn, then educators are in danger of repeating mistakes (Delisio, 2004).

Jim Grant, a former teacher who holds seminars for teachers and on the subject of retention, states, “Retention‟s not appropriate for all struggling students. It works best for younger students in a class, emotionally immature children of average or high ability, and children who are small for their age” (Kelly, 1999, p.2). However, a 1992 study by Yale

University professor Arthur Reynolds bolstered arguments that a disproportionate number of disadvantaged minority children are retained, as are boys, those who attend urban schools, and children with behavior problems. Because of these reasons, he tries to encourage teachers to think of retention as “additional learning time” for misplaced students.

Poor achievement has been an obvious reason for both retention and dropouts, but shouldn‟t it be? Why would a successful student drop out of school? School districts assume that if a child is retained the dropout rate will increase. I believe these correlations between grade retention and dropping out need to be discounted. Many factors can lead to dropping out: low interest in school, little school support from family, early age entrance, and mental and medical reasons. Readers need to realize that retention 22 does not necessarily cause higher dropout rates. I found just the opposite in the Alliance

School system. This is why I contend individual studies of school districts are needed.

Administrators need to look at variables that are effective in predicting what can be done to assure at risk students do not become dropouts in their districts and preventative measures need to be taken.

With social promotion and retention being one of the major “hot topics” that teachers are discussing yearly, it‟s sad that major steps are not taken by school districts to develop strict standards that teachers and administrators need to follow. When students are held back it‟s disappointing that teachers will put them through the same academic program, which they could not pass, when in our reach there are many alternatives teachers could execute, to help students learn differently. The educational system can not continue to have a rising drop-out rate, already in the millions, when over 80% of the jobs need a secondary education and billions are spent on drop-outs not prepared for society. If other countries have a zero retention record, the US should execute a program that will be positive and viewed as a positive intervention to parents, students, teachers, and administrators to prevent retention or social promotion before it happens.

23

Methodology

Methods of looking at Alliance High School student records include reviewing records

for inspection of all high school students enrolled in the year 2007-08. The total number of students was N=138 who were retained or placed any time during their school career. I documented several factors from their records. Areas that I recorded included gender, race, age, class, parental support, discipline, school attendance, testing scores, transient moves, and grade level they were retained/placed. (See Appendix A) In determining effects of retention or placement on a student I use correlation, multiple regression, and chi-square analysis, to decipher if any one factor is a key to one‟s success or failure before or after his/her retention/placement.

The archival data that I have collected for my thesis from the Alliance City Schools assures anonymity of the student‟s information. I have already approached the

Institutional Board Review and was informed that since I do not list students or teachers by name, there is no risk of individual identification and I did not need formal consent from students in this research project. Alliance City school district accepted my proposal.

I also surveyed teachers‟ recommendations to obtain their ideas on retention and social promotion. I developed a survey (see Appendix H) that teachers felt comfortable to fill out, giving me their honest professional opinion. Many of my informal conversations with teachers on this subject throughout the years have showed that in their opinion, schools are not making the best decisions when it comes to trying to make a student academically successful. Teachers‟ opinions on success are not being viewed because decisions are based on what a parent wants socially for their student, or politically what administrators in their school district need to fulfill. 24

Data Collection and Analysis

The data, collected for my research, came from the Alliance City School System in

Alliance, Ohio. To get an overview of the Alliance school district and the insight of how students compare to other school districts, a demographic profile of Alliance was needed.

Based on the 2000 census, the following has been reported; population is approximately

37, 000, median household income is $34,000, which is below the U.S. average, unemployment is 3.6% and below the poverty line are 13.5%. Average age for both males and females is 36.7 years and 59.6% of the residents have lived in the same house for 5+ years (See Appendix L).

Race for Alliance consists of 88.9% white, 7.8 % African American, .9%

Hispanic/Latino, .6% Asian, 1.4% multiracial, and .1% other. Fifty-two percent of the population is married, which is below U.S. average, 1.3 % is separated, 11.3% are divorced, 8.1% are widowed, and 26.95 have never been married. Educational achievement among people 25 years or older are; high school or higher 80.4% which is above U.S. average, bachelors or higher 12.7% which is below U.S. average, some college 16%, associate degree and graduate/professional degrees average 4.5%, non- graduates 19.6%. Occupations of persons over the age of 16 is; production/transportation

27.2%, construction/maintenance 8.7%, farming .7%, sales/office 24.8%, service 16.3%, mgt/professional 22.3%.

Educational statistics are from the 2005 resource data of the U.S. Dept. of Education

National Center for the Alliance City Schools in Stark County. Alliance has one high school grades 9-12, a middle school 6-8, three elementary buildings 1-5, and one

Kindergarten complex. Pupil expenditures, per pupil, for the 2005-06 school year were 25

$9,990. This is $730 higher than the average schools in the local Stark County region.

District funding for Alliance is 30% local, 55% state, and 15% federal. Total school averages for teacher/student ratio is 15%. Special programs consist of migrated students

.4%, average for free lunch is 56%, and reduced lunch is 11.5%. Elementary school student demographics are 1,180 White, 194 African American, 27 Hispanic, 3 Native

American, and 9 Asian. Middle school and high school demographics are 1,180 White,

285 African Americans, 19 Hispanics, 0 Native Americans, and 8 Asians.

I researched 996 student records to evaluate whether students who have been retained or placed were on target with their credits by graduation. If so, this could help to show that retention or placement was helpful with student‟s education. Out of 996 students, a total of 138 students had been placed or retained in their school career. Ninety-eight percent of those retentions or placements had been done before entering high school.

Only two percent had been socially promoted into high school. I then looked at their records and filled out the data sheet with the predictors to examine if the predictors made a difference in whether a student was successful with his/her educational career (See

Appendix A). The predictors consisted of the following information: gender, race, which consisted of Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian and multiracial, birth years from 1988 to 1994, age from 14 to 20 years of age, and retentions and placements in elementary, middle school and high school.

Next I examined absenteeism, tardiness, and discipline to see if they were normal or high; transient students, if they moved from public to private, city to city or state to state school systems during their school career, and whether they lived with both of their parents, one parent, step-parents, or a guardianship, such as a relative or foster care. 26

Lastly, I looked at interventions and testing. Interventions consisted of none, on an IEP, summer school or other alternative education. In testing I examined the Ohio

Achievement Tests (OAT‟s) which are given in the elementary and middle schools and the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT). Passing scores for the OAT‟s were listed as advanced, accelerated and proficient. If a child was not passing, it was listed as basic, limited and below. OGT‟s scoring includes just pass or fail for each subject taken. Subjects that were tested for OAT‟s and OGT‟s are reading, language arts, math, social studies and science.

By looking at the test scores, which are given at the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th grade, teachers can evaluate whether a student is performing at grade level. These tests can be indicators that a student is not retaining the information for a long term, or that he/she cannot do the work on their own. Teachers and administrators could start intervention programs designed to help individual or small group learning for specific trouble areas.

The data analysis consisted of three sets of analyses: correlation of elementary, middle school testing scores to the OGT‟s test scores, multiple regressions to examine predictors on the OGT‟s and then Chi squares that looked at success of grades or credits with the predictors (see Appendix B-G).

I conducted a series of Pearson Correlation analyses to test for relationships between achievements in elementary, middle school and the OGT‟s testing scores. (See Appendix

B). In the scores for math and language arts in elementary, middle, and OGT tests, no significant correlations were found at p is less than .05. I did find a positive correlation between elementary and middle school science tests, r (136) = .333, p =.007. Reading showed one correlation that had a significant p value of less than .05. The correlation was between elementary and middle school test r (136) = .430, p = .000. Social Studies tests 27 were the only subject where all three variables showed a positive correlation to each other. The results were; r (136)= .338, p = .005 between elementary social studies testing to middle school social studies tests, r (136) = .330, p = .022 between elementary social studies testing to OGT testing, and r = .683, p = .000.

Next, I conducted a series of multiple regression tests to examine the predictive ability of the following variables: gender, race, retention in elementary and middle school, absenteeism, tardiness, discipline, whether they had an IEP, parent status and elementary and middle school state testing in all five major subjects, reading, language arts, math, social studies, and science on the OGT score (see Appendix C). Many of the variables had no significant predictive effect for my sample, but three did score at .05 or less. The dependent variable towards the OGT and middle school reading (p = .019) showed that if not retained in middle school students did well on the reading test. The second was if the elementary test in math is high (p =. 011), students did well in reading. Both of these are showing that if the students had the knowledge they did well in these two areas. A third variable was that a student‟s OGT‟s science test scores did well if both parents were in the household (P = .050), suggesting that the parents together are capable in helping their child with scientific knowledge.

Chi-square tests (See Appendix D-F) were the third type of analysis, used in looking at the success of student‟s grades on grade cards for elementary/middle school students or credits for high school students, with the variety of predictors. When analysing these data, I was searching for predictors that make a difference if the students were retained or placed in the next grade. 28

No difference was found in many of the predictors. Race, gender, placement, IEP‟s, interventions, absenteeism, retention in middle school, and whether a child was transient in his/her school career showed no correlation with the success of when a child was retained. Does this mean that it is never a factor, or not necessarily so? Some of these could be factors in individual cases, but not in the majority of retentions. Absenteeism would be one, for example, which I find hard to dismiss, because if a child is not in school, how are they learning the material? It could be that a student can grasp information and apply it, but this is one predictor that I would not dismiss just because the data showed it was not a factor.

Factors that showed a significant difference in whether students who had been retained were successful: was early retention in elementary (K-4), good discipline, if they had both parents in the home, and low tardiness. All of these were significant at p = .05. (See

Appendix E and Charts). If you took the total number of students 138 it showed that 106 were on target for academic success and 32 were not on target. All of the seniors who had been retained or placed during their educational career graduated with a diploma.

The major finding from these statistical analyses was: the earlier the student was retained, the more likely he or she was back on track with their academic grades or credits. According to studies mentioned earlier by Canter and Carey students would decline after a couple of years of being retained and reading would be the area most negatively effective. The Alliance students improved. Three –fourths of the students who were retained or placed (Refer to charts) early in their school career were receiving passing marks by junior high and remained successful during high school. Students reading scores improved according to the positive correlation charts between elementary 29 to middle school. The social studies tests had a positive correlation from all three levels, which can relate to better reading ability. A majority of the students were put on an intervention program early in their schooling, which suggests interventions were a contributor for their success in junior high and high school. The middle/junior high students that were retained in the later years showed that only one out of five were able to establish academic success. Even though the number was not high for middle/junior high students who were retained, it stills shows that if we wait to see if the students catch up and they don‟t, their chances of succeeding by retention are slim.

Students may still have concerns in one or two subject areas, but they were back on track successfully if they were retained early. If being retained or placed caused these students‟ harm or humiliation, at the end they accomplished their goal of academic success. We need to turn the negative accusations of retention and placement, into positive ones. Parents need to be shown data on students from their school district that were retained and ultimately became successful. In the Holmes review it stated how at least three-fourths of the studies do not provide any information past a couple of years of retention. Retention could only be a very small part of the reason student dropouts or does not improve. If students, parents, teachers, and administrators see how retention could be a positive intervention for their students with a successful academic outcome, it could turn the negative accusations of retention around.

30

Teacher Survey

My teacher survey was given to a variety of teachers and administrators across a broad range of teaching levels and was not confined to the school district where I accomplished my student research (See Appendix H). Over fifty teachers and administrators completed the survey, ranging from kindergarten to high school. Several, having taught in more than one specific grade level, contributed their expertise in teaching for this questionnaire. The school districts were a variety of inner city, city, and rural school environments, both public and private, which is important because retention is prevalent and an issue in all school districts. Do the teachers in a variety of educational situations have the same conclusions about retention?

During my research, I found a survey, as in my own survey, which asked questions about whether students should be retained if they do not meet grade level expectations, even though those research findings indicated that repeating a grade does not improve a student‟s subsequent performance. That survey also interviewed parents along with teachers and administrators to obtain feedback on how they viewed retention. The research found that it was apparent retention of children in grade school is not a district policy being used by school administrators and board members against the wishes of educators and parents in the community. Interestingly, parents who have had children retained were no different in their views toward retention than parents who have not

(Shepard & Smith, 1989, p. 113).

Another survey by Mary L. Smith from Arizona State University interviewed 40 teachers at 10 different elementary schools in Boulder, CO. about how they felt on 31 retaining students. Few teachers could name one negative effect of retention, writes

Smith in Flunking Grades.

“Almost all stated…they would rather err on the side of retaining a child who possibly might not need it than to promote one who might have needed to be retained. Nor, she adds, “Was there doubt that children‟s achievement and adjustment would be enhanced by a second year before first grade (Kelly, 1999, p. 2).”

My survey indicated that even though the teachers and administrators came from many different teaching environments, they agreed in many areas and developed similar conclusions on retention and placement, including ideas toward preventing it.

In reviewing the information from the survey, I combined the questions into several areas. The first two questions dealt with retaining and at what grade level to retain. The teachers overwhelmingly agreed that, for students failing to meet academic standards, retention should occur in the first trimester of a child‟s education, which was K-4. Only one teacher, out of all who responded, felt a student should never be retained, and only five responded that retention should be limited to only special cases.

The next sections, which I grouped together, were about student retention. Teachers answered yes or no to the following questions: 1. Should a student be retained more than once in a grade level? 2. Should students be retained for the purpose of red shirting in sports? 3. Retained because of discipline problems, and 4. Should social development be the only reason a child should be retained? A three-fourths majority of the teachers stated no to all of these questions. For the questions on reasons why a student should be retained, only five teachers felt a student should be retained for all of these reasons, and seven teachers did not know whether any of these reasons should be a factor in retention.

Many teachers made the comment “absolutely not” in the section of red-shirting. This term is used in a situation where students are retained to improve performance in a non- 32 academic area, namely sports. The student‟s academic performance is not taken under consideration. The student, who is usually in junior high, is retained in the hope that he/she will get a college scholarship. This practice is also used to build strong athletic teams through the district. Retention in these cases is of course carried out with the knowledge and support of the student and parents. It does not carry a social stigma of being retained. What many teachers find is that it does lead to disciplinary problems because the student, who in most cases was academically sound, is bored and tends to goof off more in the classroom. The student also loses a whole academic year of academic advancement.

In three sections of the survey, the teachers were divided equally on whether a yes or no decision was appropriate. These results were in the categories of: 1. Placing a child in the next grade if he/she has failed. 2. If a child is placed, should a parent be able to override that decision. 3. Should a child change classrooms or schools during intervention? The teachers were split on intervention or where a change of classroom/school was needed if a child was retained. Only one teacher felt a student should go through the exact same school environment the next year. The majority of teachers stated that intervention programs were needed if retained, and most felt that a classroom change was needed, but not necessarily a school change for the student.

The question of whether a school district can override a parent‟s decision of retention resulted in a mixture of responses. The majority, over thirty responses, felt the district cannot interfere. However, a few said yes, they didn‟t know, or it should be in special cases only. The response shows that teachers would like to support the parents who 33 believe that if their child did not master the grade level, the student should be held accountable.

The question of who should have the most input in the decision of retention, provided interesting comments. As a teacher, who spends the most quality of time with a student‟s educational development, I felt that teachers should have the most input in the decision.

Kelly, in her research, states that even though parents should have the final say, teachers would still give recommendations to the principal about who should be held back. (Kelly,

1999 p.2) I expected that most teachers would have the same viewpoint. However, I found out that was not necessarily true. The teachers and administrators most often were split in their decisions of whether or not teachers or students should be ranked first or fourth in the retention process in deciding whether a student should be retained. They did comment that if a student should be first in this decision, it should be a student who was older, at least of middle school age. Parents were clearly ranked as being second in the decision, and principals were ranked third in deciding a child‟s retention. In a survey by

Shepard and Smith, 66% of teachers felt that they should have the final say, as did 48% of lower income parents who felt teachers should make the final decision on retention.

Principals (48%) felt they should have the last word and higher income parents (20%) felt that they needed to have the final say on retention of their child. (Shepard & Smith 1989, p. 111)

The format of my survey allowed respondents the option to simply circle a selection to answer the question, or to circle and comment. As teachers returned my surveys, they were apologizing for not simply circling an answer. They were stating that this is such a

“hot topic”, they just had to comment on what they felt passionate about. One teacher 34 admitted that out of 23 years of teaching, she never retained a child, and stated, “It‟s hard; each case depends on individual circumstances.” Almost 100% for the teachers were adamant about retaining students, but yet very few had retained a child in their teaching careers. If teachers want students to achieve academically, teachers are going to have to be retaining students when needed, and then work hard at developing an intervention program that will successfully get them back on track academically.

So what did they comment about? Many of the administrators made comments that they felt early retention; good instruction and strong intervention programs were keys in success with retention. One administrator mentioned that his/her district has a retention program for the early grades, which includes a different curriculum program from the classroom they just completed. In this district a student does not go through the exact same program in subsequent years. Many teachers mentioned the same sort of suggestions for retention. Teachers stated that flexibility with retention programs is the key to student success. Since students are individuals with unique needs and personal baggage, a program needs to be defined for them for their success.

Partial retention was another suggestion; students are retained only in areas they did not pass. They move ahead by ability and unrelated to age. This way a child could actually progress more than one level per year depending on ability, maturity, and motivation. It would eliminate failure forever. This would result in an ungraded system such as 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 years where a student could be placed.

Teachers felt that parents needed to be informed very early in the year that their students were at risk and be kept informed throughout the year of their progress. Many interventions could be tried with parental help, such as mandatory summer school for 35 older students, and if a child has severe behavior then a special school should be considered for the success of this child. Investigation into the school, in general, is needed to determine why there is failure with students in their school system. Teachers believed that the NCLB is putting pressure on schools (Alter & Delisio, 2004), gives principals the authority just to pass students to the next grade, and has teachers mainly work on teaching the tests instead of teaching many areas of education that are not being taught or have time to teach properly.

If students do not have the basic skills when in high school, but do have a dream of going to college, it is not realistic for us to think they will succeed if we keep placing them into the next grade. When the student goes back for remediation, it needs to be for the basics. Many teachers had this type of comment on their surveys. If a student is to be placed, it would be because of the following reasons: the age of the students is too great for his/her environment, a student has passed successfully all of his/her achievement tests, but needs a program to stimulate his/her learning in the classroom, a student has a good intervention plan and show steady progress, but still seems to struggle throughout the year, or a child has already been retained once.

If parents want their child placed into the next grade and not held back, then parents also need to be held accountable in working together with the schools in their child‟s success in that new grade. One teacher mentioned that any plan needs to be notarized, to indicate that parents are stating they will be active participants in their child‟s success.

It‟s unfair to all students, teachers, and parents to keep placing failing students into the next elementary grade. Without the proper knowledge, how will students be able to comprehend in the intermediate levels, and how will the teachers be able to teach the 36 required courses to students who cannot conceive what they are supposed to be learning?

Students need to be successful. The bottom line is what is beneficial for the students?

These are all excellent concerns that teachers and administrators have expressed in the retention survey.

More successful reports on retention or placement of students should be used by school systems in making decisions on failing students. If successful examples are not available, then school systems need to start tracking students who have been successful in retention or placement and record interventions that work. It‟s easier to pass the buck onto the next teacher, administrator, or school system to fix “Mary or Johnny” in their educational achievement. The problem is that Mary and Johnny never get fixed, and we have just made another unsuccessful adult to join the unemployment lines and welfare systems because we believe someone else will do the job instead of fixing the situation on the onset of the problem.

37

Discussion and Alternative Approaches

I have researched many articles and books, and one thing I have consistently noted is neither social promotion nor retention is ideal. Heidi Glidden, assistant director of educational issues at the American Federation of Teachers, sums up her organization‟s position by saying, “We don‟t believe in the practice of social promotion, and we don‟t think the answer to anything is just retaining a lot of kids”(Hennick, 2008, p.58).

What do you do when you know that retention is bad for a child‟s self-esteem, that they still might not excel academically, and if you do promote them without the knowledge to succeed, it could be just as demoralizing? My research agrees with the solution educators are stating: you need to intervene early and often. If you do, retention might be prevented. If you need to retain, the earlier the better, for the success of a child becoming academically stable.

In one study, when students were asked why they had been retained, most stated that they got a lot of U‟s or F‟s, they had bad grades in reading and math. Academic ability is a major part of school failure. Not being able to function academically can lead to other responses that students gave for being retained such as: I kept playing, or I was always talking and goofing off, and in the older students I don‟t know how to study and listen (Shepard and Smith, 1989, p.119).

Can it be detrimental to a child to be retained? Of course it can. But it can be just as detrimental if a child is promoted to the next grade and is not able to accomplish the work, or is placed throughout his high school career, graduates, but does not have the knowledge to be successful in his life. It is crucial that early detection of failing 38 achievement be dealt with, whether it is retention or placement with interventions, to establish a solid foundation of knowledge for the student.

If we want students‟ retention to turn around, students must know how to read and write. If they know how to read and write they can apply it to math, science, and social studies. According to a report by the “Kids and Family Reading Report” which was published June 2006 by Scholastic, the amount of time spent on reading by children has dropped significantly after the age of eight. In 1999, only 13% of fourth grade students achieved advanced/proficient status on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment

System tests for English language arts (Reading Today, Oct/Nov, 2006). By 2004 those tests scores jumped up to 63% achieving that status, and they now ranked 3rd from 28th in school districts‟ ranking. The cause for this jump was two hours of daily language arts, academic after-school programs and Saturday tutoring, early literacy intervention for 1st and 2nd graders, and specialty literacy-trained teachers who go into the classrooms to provide help for the older students. They also emphasised reading for pleasure that involved parents and family members encouraging children to read, by setting the example of reading themselves. Pre-school literacy instruction has also become a pretty hot topic among educators, according to a survey by literacy leaders (Reading Today,

Dec 2005/Jan 2006, p. 8).

Donna Alvermann gave four principle practices for teachers to help middle graders improve their literacy. Middle graders thrive in active learning environments, they need to generate and share their ideas about complex subject matter. Students need to be able to develop an awareness of what they read, hear, and see and make a connections with their readings to the world outside the classroom (Alvermann, Dec 2006, pp. 7-12). No 39 matter what level of education we are working with, pre-school through high school, reading is a key component for academic success.

A problem that I have seen in many school districts throughout the country is when retaining a student he/she will go right back into the same classroom scenario. “The research shows if a child is retained, and you do the same things, he or she will be further behind than ever” (Delisio, 2004, p.2). Administrators need to do something different with a student to make sure when he or she repeats the same grade they will become successful. Struggling learners need more than just additional practice. We also must be able to provide comprehensive instruction which helps repair the student‟s inadequate foundation of learning and understanding (Burns, Nov 2007, pp. 1-6). Even though this type of instruction can be done in large-group settings, it is best applied in a supplementary setting. A new intervention approach needs to be applied.

The Lincoln Prairie School in Hoffman Estates, IL has developed a non-traditional school structure where they have not retained a student in the five years it has existed.

A multi-age class, with a curriculum in multiple intelligence learning, is their school structure. Principal Jan Jetel told Education World, “Multi-age learning is a gift of time, students work to complete a curriculum cycle. The activities are open-ended, and students can work on their own pace” (Delisio, 2004, p.2). This is an excellent idea for early elementary classes K-3, or possibly K-6. Students can work at their own pace and maturity. I can see how this would motivate the slower learner to work to a higher level, and keep the over achiever or gifted student continuously learning, which they are not able to do in a traditional classroom where everyone learns the same thing at the same time. Even if students did not grasp the concept the first time, they know they can keep 40 working until they are successful. This is a huge step in keeping students self-esteem high, which is needed in success.

In similar arguments, if a student fell behind in their grade level then they would be promoted to a step grade. An example of this would be the following: a student just completed second grade but was not academically successful, so the student would be placed in the 2.5 grade instead of being held back to repeat the second grade or placed in the third grade. The student would continue to work on a second grade curriculum until he/she was successful, and the next step would be to move on to the third grade curriculum. Depending on how long the above process took, the next year the student would be placed in the third grade or another half grade class, if they would be too far ahead to enter into the third grade. When students have been promoted back into the traditional classroom, this program continues to monitors them for several years. If teachers see a student was slipping or needed another half step grade, they would quickly intervene. Many such arguments stated that one thing missing in the retention or placement scenarios is the tracking of those students in their educational career to see if they had become successful or if they were still struggling in school. Tracking of these students is what makes such a program appealing and successful. However, even though these programs have proven to reduce or eliminate retention, many teachers and principals do not support flexible entry age, transitional classes for maturity, multi-age or non-graded school structures (Shepard and Smith, 1989, p.114).

Dr. Mark Alter, of The National Association of School Psychologists, and others agree that schools need to employ what works best for each child. Schools need to work towards “promotion plus” interventions that are designed to address the specific factors 41 that could place a student at risk for retention or social promotion. Dr. Alter states,

“Teachers need more flexibility: if a child is not reading, the child may need a different approach to reading….Teachers should identify what works and what doesn‟t, and put in place an infrastructure that assumes a child can learn” (Delisio, 2004, p. 2) (Stump,

2008). This is easy to say and could possible be easy to do, but if you have a classroom of

25-30 students, with just one or several students behind, it raises a serious question; Does a teacher have the time to make individual interventions for all who need it? Does a school system have the finances to develop intervention programs to help the teacher to develop the programs?

Technology can be a secret weapon in the war against retention and dropout ratings. As an example of this, three schools in Houston, Los Angles, and Orlando Fla., have developed technology programs to fight against the 7,000 students who will dropout of school today. Houston uses technology in enhancing students‟ English skills. Orlando has developed a virtual school online schooling for K-12. Ohio also has developed this same program, and Los Angeles developed an advertising web site for re-enrollment and communication to students who have dropped out and would like to re-entry to school programs (Sturgeon, Feb/March 2008, pp.25-26).

New York City schools saw retention becoming a major problem after the state instituted standardized testing. If a student failed the tests, they were automatically retained. In the 1990‟s, New York City schools stopped the automatic retention and developed tutoring and remedial summer programs to help students become successful with the standardized tests. The Dade County, Florida school system, New Orleans,

Louisiana school system, and other school systems across the country faced similar 42 problems (Thomson, 1998, p.2). Dade County developed early intervention programs and warnings to parents that their child might be retained. Louisiana has a seventy-nine-page pupil progression plan for their public schools. It‟s very direct in placement requirements, policies and remediation policies. Appendices I-K are three examples that I feel are excellent documents to be used by a school district when a student is in danger of failing.

The first one is a student study educational plan for grades K-8. The form states recommended interventions, which can be used to help the student. It tracks his/her attendance and states what courses or grade levels that are in danger. All who are responsible for the success of the student‟s academics needs to sign this form: the teacher, parent, student, principal, and intervention chairman.

The second form is a documentation of promotion or retention. It states many of my predictors that I used to research the students from Alliance. These predictors are reviewed and a determination is then made as to whether the student is promoted, retained, placed, or recommended for summer school. The intervention team for the next school year can add other interventions. All who were listed above are required to sign. A child, who is on an intervention program and is promoted, needs to have a parent sign a high stakes override consent form. The form gives the parents the right to accept or reject the promotion, but also outlines the guidelines of promotion or retention the student needs to abide by in accordance to the pupil progression plan. With these forms, the student has a plan for success in the grade repeated or promoted too (New Orleans Dept. of Education Progression Plan, 2007-08).

Limited intellectual capacity has been looked at as a characteristic of dropouts. This type of thinking, which has been supported by studies, lends one to believe dropouts 43 come from low intelligence. Table 1 shows an association between low intelligence and dropouts. If your IQ score is below 85 a student might not be capable to successfully complete high school. Studies conducted in California and New York concluded that dropout rates do not differ significantly in intelligence from students who finish high school. A report by McCready and Kitch and the Board of Education in New York using different variables including intelligence to see if IQ is a factor in dropouts, found little difference in average IQ scores of graduates to those of dropouts. And in New York IQ scores were in the normal range. (Grinder, 1969, pp.383-386)

Table 1: Measured Intelligence of Dropouts and High-School Graduates ______IQ ______85 and 110 and Under 85-89 90-109 over ______High School Graduates 10% 11% 63% 16% Dropouts 31% 15% 48% 6%

IQ scores are intertwined with reading ability. Cook and Lanier have found that dropouts have lower language development than students who remain in school, but dropouts have higher nonlanguage ability than their language IQ scores (Grinder, p.386).

This substantiate that reading is an important factor in academic success. If a student does not have a solid reading background early in his/her educational career, it can be a factor in academic failure. Poor readers have difficulty in doing work. Not doing work leads to failure in subject material and grade retention. Reading success needs to prevelant in elementary grades before a student can achieve success at a higher level.

Understanding teachers‟ beliefs about retention by an administration, could be a strong asset in how a school can make a negative action become positive. Shepard and

Smith researched teachers‟ beliefs about developmental readiness for school in 44 understanding their opinions on retention. They categorized teachers in two groups, nativists and non-nativists, which developed into three sub groups: remediationists, diagnostic-prescriptive teachers, and interactionists (Shepard and Smith, 1989, pp. 136-

138).

Nativists believe, within a normal range of environment, children will become prepared for school. We cannot push development; all children will develop at their own rate of speed, so teachers can only allow more time for them to learn and grow.

Remediationists are active instructional teachers. They believe children of legal kindergarten age can be taught and the teacher can influence their ability to learn. A diagnostic-prescriptive teacher believes a child cannot learn because of a defect in auditory, visual, or motor ability, and these traits can be corrected by training to help these specific needs. Lastly, we have the interactionists who believe environment and materials plays a part in a child‟s learning process. Teachers who learn the interests of the child will be able to influence developmental readiness.

When asking teachers about their merits of retention, Shepard and Smith said,

“They expected teachers who retain few children would also entertain reservations about its use and endorse it less often than teachers, particularly nativists, who use it frequently. This expectation was not fulfilled, teachers of all belief types and those who retain relatively few pupils, all endorsed retention as an effective solution to a perceived problem. They may have defined the problem differently, but what they said about the solution was the same. Presumably, low-retaining teachers would have judged retention to be less beneficial if applied to larger proportions of children. The predominant view expressed by the teachers is that retention benefits the pupil” (Shepard and Smith, 1989, pp.136-140).

45

Summary

While not all of the predictors used in collecting my data to see when a student has the greatest positive impact were statistically proven, a student retained in early elementary school was the main predictor to show significant success. Does this mean that predictors such as race or gender can be eliminated in a study? No. Any predictor that could make a difference in a student‟s learning needs to be investigated. Specific ones, such as the student‟s discipline, absenteeism/tardiness, testing scores, plus intervention programs and parental involvement are all important in predicting a student‟s educational ability. All predictors should be studied before developing an intervention program to be certain there are no problems.

Researching the students‟ records was a long tedious job. Many records were incomplete and information was not placed consistently. It was hard to find important information that was needed. When the information was found, some was incomplete.

Buildings within the same school district had different forms for the same information using different language. This is one limitation that I found while retrieving data that needs improvement. Records need to be simple to understand and easy to read. Records need to be current and information placed in a specific order. When a student comes, from another city, state, or local school district, records need to be complete, ear- marked if a student is in academic trouble, and testing types, test scores and grades need to be clearly marked.

School districts need to study successful programs to see which ones would be beneficial to their demographics. Intervention programs must be put in place and used for students who are in danger of retention or placement. There are teachers who are 46 excellent in recovering a failing child. Intervention programs should engage these types of teachers in their programs. A multi-age class where teachers could work with a few students in an intervention program could be a start to see whether this type of non- traditional school learning could be successful. Districts should use these classes to catch a student up to his/her potential grade level, give those student skills to be able to use in the classroom to make them successful and move them back into a regular classroom as soon as possible.

Research has indicated that retention or placement of a child can be detrimental to that child‟s stability. I cannot deny that it is, but in the long run, what will be best for the student? Do we keep placing a student ahead in hopes that he/she will catch up, or do we take drastic measures in the early stages in a student‟s learning so they become grade appropriate? Many interventions are needed, parents need to be informed early that their child is at risk, and teachers/administrators need to develop a strategic plan to get that student back on track.

Changing attitudes towards retention is another limitation that needs to be corrected.

Positive thoughts and reactions need to be displayed when discussing and implementing retention plans if educators want a student to have academic success. Studies need to be done to track a student through his/her entire education to see the final outcome of retention and these reports need to be documented. Students and their parents need to see that retention will increase their ability to have academic success for them. If we had positive reports on retention, parents would be more likely to agree on it and view it as a positive step. 47

Time is another limitation, which is important in whether a student is failing. Many schools will wait a couple of quarters to see if a student will improve. By the time interventions are needed a good portion of the school year is wasted. Now schools have to decide on retention.

Schools need to quickly intervene when a student is falling behind, put interventions in place, and keep parents informed and active in their child‟s learning to help prevent retention. Many schools wait for a couple of quarters to see if a student will improve. By the time evidence shows that interventions are needed, a good portion of the school year is wasted. If a student needs to be retained, show parents how their school district makes it a positive move not a negative one. A positive retention plan then needs to be put in place for the academic success of the students and be presented to the parents and student so they all feel secure that the student will gain academic success from the retention.

In conclusion on my topic statement, when does retention have the greatest positive impact on student‟s academic success, retention needs to be done in early elementary years to be effective, but a better alternative would be to have multi-age ungraded classes with special interventions to help every student ultimately achieve academic success.

48

References

ABC News (2006). Stupid in america, how we cheat our kids. Narrated by John Stossel

ABC 20/20.

Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Dauber, S. (1994). On the success of failure.

A Reassessment of the Effects of Retention in the Primary grades. Melbourne,

Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Allensworth, E. M. (2005). Dropout rates after high-stakes testing in elementary school:

A study of the Contradictory effects of chicago’s efforts to end social promotion.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 314-346.

Anagnostopoulos, D. (2006). Real students and true demotes: ending social promotion

and the moral ordering of urban high schools. American Educational Research Journal,

43, 5-42.

Astin, A. W., (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco, Ca. Jossey-

Bass., Inc., Publishers.

Barber, W. (1987). Dropouts, Push outs, and Other Casualties. Unpublished manuscript,

Center On Evaluation, Development, Research Phi Delta Kappa. Berkeley Parents

Network: Retention: repeating a grade. Retrieved July 17, 2006.

http://parents.berkeley.edu/advice/school/repeating.html

Boyd, W.L. and Kerchner, C.T. (1988). Introduction and overview: Education and

The politics of excellence and choice. In W.L. Boyd and C. T. Kerchner (Eds),

The politics of excellence and choice in education (pp.1-11). Philadelphia:

Falmer Press.

49

Brooks, R. PhD (2008). School retention: a common practice but is it effective?

Robert Brooks, Ph.D. Resilience, Self-Esteem, Motivation, & Family Relationships.

Retrieved May 1, 2008

http://www.drobertbrooks.com/writings/articles/0211.html

Canter, A., & Carey, K. (June 1998). Retention and promotion: a handout for parents

(Electronic version) NASP Communique, Vol. 26-8. Retrieved July 17, 2006.

http://www.nasponline.org/publication/cq268retainpar.html revisited.

Cline, T. The assessment of special educational needs: international perspectives

Routledge, 1992. (pp. 69-74).

Davidson, A.M. (2004, December). Retention in School.

Children’s Health Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 1, 2008

http://www.answers.com/topic/retention-in-school?cat=health

Delisio, E. R. (2004, February, 2007, November). Making retention a last resort.

Education World. The Educator’s Best Friend.

http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/admin/admin344.shtml

Doyle, D. (May 2004). Letter from Washington. Educational Leadership, 61, (8).

Retrieved July 12, 2006,

www.thedooylerreport.com

Dunphy J., & Frady M. (1985). Letter from Washington. Educational Leadership, 61, (8).

Retrieved July 12, 2006,

www.thedooylerreport.com

Elsbree, W. S. (1943). Pupil progress in the elementary school. Bureau of

Publications Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.

50

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: notes on the politics of an urban public high school.

Discharging the Student Bodies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press

Gale, T. (2005). Retention in school.

Healthline Connect to Better Health. Retrieved May 1, 2008

http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/retention-in-school

Grinder, Robert E. (1969). Studies in adolescence. (pp. 383-388.)

Toronto,Ontario: MacMillian Co.

Hennick, C. (2008 May/June). 2nd Grade again. Scholastic Instructor Vol. 117, No, 6.

(pp. 55-58). New York, N.Y.: Scholastic, Inc.

Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (1996). The schools we need and why don’t we have them. New York.,

NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.

Holt, J. (1982). How children fail. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.

Indicator 25, (2006). Student effort and educational progress elementary/secondary

persistence and progress.

ies National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved May 1, 2008

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/section3/indicator25.asp

Jimerson, S., Kerr, M., & Pletcher, S., (2005). Alternatives to grade retention. Principal

Leadership (High School Ed,), 5, 11-15.

Johnson, D. & Rudolph, A. (2001). Critical issue: beyond social promotion and retention-

five strategies to help students succeed. North Central Regional Educational

Laboratory. Retrieved November 20, 2006,

http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at 800.http

51

Kelly, K. (1999, January/February). Retention vs. social promotion: schools

search for alternatives.

Harvard Education Letter. Retrieved May 1, 2008

http:www.edletter.org/past/issues/1999-jf/retention.shtml

Kilgore. (2005). Comprehensive solutions for urban reform. Educational Leadership,

44-47. Larson, J. (2007, December). Promotion, retention, and grading.

California Department of Education. Retrieved May 1, 2008

http://wwwcde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/promoretnetion.asp

Lieberman, M. (1993). Public education an autopsy. Cambridge, Massachusetts; Harvard

University Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). A recommended

approach to providing high school Dropout and completion rates at the state level.

(NCES 2000-305). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement: Author.

Logsdon, A. (2008). Grade retention and school failure – is grade retention right for your

Child? About.com: Learning Disabilities. Retrieved May 1, 2008

http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/learningdisabilitybasic/qt/graderetention.htm

Moller, S. & Stearns, E. (2004, August). Retention and school dropout: examining

Connectivity between children and schools.

allacademic research. Retrieved May 1, 2008

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_ research_ citiation/1/0/8/7/6p108764

index.html

52

Mondale S. & Patton, S., Films for the Humanities & Sciences (2002). “School, the story

of American public education: the bottom line in education 1980 to present.” Stone

Lantern Films (55 minutes). Narrated by Meryl Streep.

New Orleans Public School District (2007, May). Pupil progression plan for new

orleans public schools for 2007-2008.

Louisiana Department of Education. Retrieved May 16, 2008

http:www.nops.k12.la.us/pages/contact_us

Ohio Department of Education. (2000-2001). “Talking about schools an ohio community

forum.” Video series 370.9771 T1460, Ohio Department of Education.

Ohio Department of Education. (2000-2001). “Assessment measuring student

achievement an ohio community forum.” Video series 370.9771 T1460, Ohio Depart.

of Education

Ohio Department of Education. (2000-2001). “Accountability, improving school

performance and ohio community forum.” Video series 370.9771 T1460, Ohio

Department of Education.

Orfield, G., (2004). Dropouts in America. Confronting the graduation rate crisis.

Cambridge, MA : Harvard Education Press.

Owings, W. A., & Kaplan, L. S. (2001). Standards, retention, and social promotion.

NASSP Bulletin 85, 57-66 D.

Robertson, A. (2004, December). Retention in school – when retention is

recommended, what should parents do?

Padda. Retrieved May 1, 2008

http://www.padda.org/newsletter.shtml 53

Roderick, M. (1993). The path to dropping out/evidence for intervention. Grade

Retention and School Dropout: Investigating the Association, 103-127. Westport, CT:

Auburn House.

Sambar, C. (1997). Social promotion revisited. Retrieved, November 13, 2006.

http://www.sambar.com/chuck/social.htm

Scott, B. A. and Ames, L. B. (1969) „Improved academic, personal, and social

adjustment in selected primary school repeaters‟, The Elementary School

Journal, 69, pp. 431-9.

Sheffield, A., & Frankel, B. (1988). When I was young I loved school dropping out and

hanging in. Children’s Express. New York, NY. Children‟s Express Foundation, Inc.

Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M. (1989). Flunking grades: research and policies on

Retention. Philadelphia, PA: The Farmers Press, Taylor & Francis Inc.

Silberglitt, B., Jimerson, S., Burns, M. K., & Appleton, J. J. (2006). Does the timing of

grade retention make a difference? Examining the effects of early versus later

retention. School Psychology Review, 35, 134-141.

Smink, J. (2001). Alternatives to retention. NASSP Bulletin,85, 3-17.

Stump, C. Ph.D., (2001, June & 2004, May). Grade retention: the great debate.

Great Schools The Parent’s Guide to K-12 Success. Retrieved May 1, 2008

from http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.aspx?r=315

Theobald, N. D., & Malen, B.(2000) American Education Finance Association,

2000 Yearbook. Balancing Local Control and State Responsibility for K-12

Education, pp. 281-283. Eye on Education, Inc.

54

Weis, L., Farrar, E., & Petrie H. G. (1989). Dropouts from school: issues, dilemmas and

solutions: State University, New York Press.

Woelfel, K. (November/December 2003). Alternatives to social promotion and retention.

Principal 83 (2). Retrieved July 12, 2006,

www.naesp.org

Wright, P.W.D., & Wright Pamela D. (1998) Retention and social promotion

Wrightslaw. Retrieved May I, 2008

http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/retain.index.htm

55

APPENDICIES

Appendix A

Data Sheet

Gender______Race______Birth year______Age______Grade______

Retentions Elementary______Middle______High School______

Placed Elementary______Middle______High School______

Absenteeism Normal______High______

Tardy Normal______High______

Interventions None______IEP______Summer______Other______

Testing Elem Middle Ohio Grad

Read Read Read LA LA LA Math Math Math SS SS SS Science Science Science

Scoring Key B= Below Ba = Basic P = Proficient Ad = Advanced

Transient State______City______

Discipline No problem ______Problem______

Parents Both______Single______Other______

Grade card records helpful Yes______Somewhat______No_____

Complete records helpful Yes______Somewhat______No______

56

57

.

58

59

Chart 1

60

Chart 2

61

Chart 3

62

Chart 4

63

Chart 5

64

Chart 6

65

Chart 7

66

Chart 8

67

Chart 9

68

Chart 10

69

Chart 11

70

Chart 12

71

Chart 13

72

Chart 14

73

Chart 15

74

75

76

77

Appendix H Teacher Survey

Teacher Survey

My name is Judy Kosiba and I‟m completing my masters program from Wittenberg University. My subject matter is on Retention and Placement in Schools. I would appreciate it if you could fill out the following survey for my research. No names are needed and all information is for my direct use for my research only.

Please answer honestly to all the questions below. If you would like to comment on any of the questions, feel free to do so. Thank you.

1. What grade level do you teach?

Elementary Middle/Jr. High High School Administrator

2. Do you agree should students sometimes be retained in a grade?

Yes No Don‟t Know Only Special Cases Like______

3. At what grade level do you think retention is most effective?

K-4 5-8 9-12 No grade level

4. Should a student ever be retained more than once in a grade level?

Yes No Don‟t Know

5. Should a student, regardless of his or her grades, be retained to play sports (red shirted)?

Yes No Don‟t Know

6. Who should have the most input in the decision of a student? Order the list with 4 indicating the most.

Parent ____ teacher ____ principal_____ student_____

7. Do you believe in placing a child to the next grade if he/she has failed? 78

Yes No Don‟t Know Only Special Cases Like______

Draft Proposal: Retention and Social Promotion 12

8. If a school district has placed a child should a parent be able to over ride school policy on whether or not his child should be retained?

Yes No Don‟t Know

9. Should a student be made to take a summer program if he/she has failed for the year?

Yes No Don‟t Know

10. If a student has failed and the parents want that child held back, should the district be able to interfere, to place that child to the next grade

Yes No Don‟t Know Only special cases, like______

11. If a student has failed and is a major discipline problem in your school, should the school keep placing him/her, so you can quickly get that student out of your school?

Yes No Don‟t Know

12. If possible, should failing students be placed back into the same classroom, change schools/classrooms or should there be a special intervention classroom for the next year, for those who fail (students K-3 in one class, 4-6 in another, and 7-8)?

Same Intervention Program Change Schools/Classrooms Don‟t Know

13. Should a student‟s social development be the only reason we place the child into the next grade?

Yes No Don‟t Know

14. If a student passes local or state achievement tests, but fails in the classroom, should that make a difference in whether or not you retain or place the child?

Yes No Don‟t Know

15. Any comments about retention and/or placement that you would like to add for my research will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and honesty! JKosiba