AlexanderK. L., EntwisleD. R., and DauberS. L. (1994). On the success of failure: A reassessment of the effects of retention in the primary grades. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AllensworthE. (2004). Ending social promotion in Chicago: The effects of ending social promotion in the eighth grade on dropout rates. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
3.
American Educational Research Association. (2000). AERA position statement concerning high-stakes testing in preK-12 education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
4.
AmreinA. L., and BerlinerD. C. (2002, March 28) High-stakes testing, uncertainty and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved November 13, 2004, from http://eepa.asu/eepa/v10n18
5.
BettsJ. R., and CostrellR. (2001). Incentives and equity under standards-based reform. In and and RavitchD. (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy (pp. 9—74). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
6.
BrykA. S. (2003). No Child Left Behind, Chicago style. In PetersonP.E., and WestM.R. (Eds.), No Child Left Behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 242—268). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
7.
ByrnesD. (1989). Attitudes of students, parents and educators toward repeating a grade. In ShepardL., and SmithM. (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 108—131). London: The Falmer Press.
8.
CatterallJ. (1989). Standards and school dropouts: A national study of tests required for high school graduation. American Journal of Education, 98(November), 1—34.
9.
CohenD. K. (1996). Rewarding teachers for student performance. In FuhrmanS.H., and O'DayJ.A. (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 60—112). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
CooperH., KellyC., ValentineJ., and MuhlenbruckL. (2000). Making the most of summer school: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 65: 260. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
11.
CooperH., NyeB., KellyC., LindsayJ., and GreathouseS. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3): 227—268.
12.
Darling-HammondL. (1996). Restructuring schools for high performance. In FuhrmanS., and O'DayJ.A. (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 144—191). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Darling-HammondL., and WiseA. (1985). Beyond standardization: State standards and school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 315—336.
14.
DenhamC., and LiebermanA. (Eds.). (1980). Time to learn. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Institute of Education.
FasholaI. (1998). Review of extended-day and after-school programs and their effectiveness. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
17.
FinniganK., and O'DayJ. (2003). External support to schools on probation: Getting a leg up?Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research & University of Pennsylvania: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
18.
FirestoneW. A., MayrowetzD., and FairmanJ. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95—113.
19.
FisherC. W., and BerlinerD. C. (Eds.). (1985). Perspectives on instructional time. New York: Longman.
20.
GampertR.A. (1987). A follow-up study of the 1982–1983 promotional gates students. New York: New York City Public Schools, Office of Educational Assessment: 1–41.
21.
GrissomJ. B., and ShepardL. A. (1989). Repeating and dropping out of school. In ShepardL., and SmithM. (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 34—63). London: Falmer.
22.
HeubertJ. P., and HauserR. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
23.
HessG. A. (1999). Expectations, opportunity, capacity, and will: The four essential components of Chicago school reform. Educational Policy, 13(4), 494—517.
24.
HessG. A. (2002). Accountability and support in Chicago: Consequences for students. In and and RavitchD. (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy (pp. 339—385). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
25.
HolmesC. T. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In ShepardL., and SmithM. (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 16—33). London: Falmer.
26.
HolmesC. T. (2000). Promoting the end of retention. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(4), 300—314.
27.
HolmesC. T., and MatthewsK. (1984). The effects of non-promotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 225—236.
28.
HouseE. R. (1998). The predictable failure of Chicago's student retention program. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado School of Education.
29.
JacksonG. B. (1975). The research evidence on the effects of grade retention. Review of Educational Research, 45(4), 613—635.
30.
JacobB. A., and LefgrenL. (2002). Remediation education and student achievement: A regression-discontinuity analysis (NBER Working Paper 8918). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
31.
JacobR. T., StoneS., and RoderickM. (2004). Ending social promotion: The response of teachers, students and parents. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
32.
JimersonS. R. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 420—437.
33.
JimersonS., CarlsonE., RotertM., EgelandB., and SroufeL. A. (1997). A prospective, longitudinal study of the correlates and consequences of early grade retention. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 3—25.
34.
JonesM. G., JonesB. D., and HardinB. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 199—203.
35.
KleinS. P., HamiltonL. S., McCaffreyD. F., and StecherB. M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us?Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
36.
KoretzD. M. (1988). Arriving in Lake Woebegone: Are standardized tests exaggerating achievement and distorting instruction?American Educator, 12(2), 8—15, 46–52.
37.
KoretzD. (1999). Foggy lenses: Limitations in the use of achievement tests as measures of educators, productivity. Devising Incentives to Promote Human Capital, Irvine, CA.
38.
KoretzD. M., and BarronS. I. (1998). The validity of gains in scores on the Kentucky instructional results information system (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
39.
KoretzD. M., BarronS. I., MitchellK. J., and StecherB. M. (1996). Perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Information System. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
40.
LeeV., SmithJ. G., PerryT., and SmylieM. (1999). Social support, academic press and student achievement: A view from the middle grades in Chicago. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
41.
LevinH., and TsangM. C. (1987). The economics of student time. Economics of education review, 6(4), 357—364.
42.
LinnR. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(1), 1—16.
43.
LinnR. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4—16.
44.
MehrensW.A. (1998). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence?Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 6(13). Retrieved October 4, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v6n13.html
45.
MillerS. R., AllensworthE. M., and KochanekJ. R. (2002). State of Chicago public high schools 1993–2000. Student performance: Course taking, test scores and outcomes. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
46.
NagaokaJ., and RoderickM. (2004). Ending social promotion: The effects of retention. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
47.
NagaokaJ., and RoderickM. (2004). Ending social promotion: The effects of retention. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
48.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2003). Position statement on student grade retention and social promotion. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
49.
National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
50.
NewmannF., BrykA. S., and NagaokaJ. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
51.
PetersonS. E., DeGracieJ., and AyabeC. (1987). A longitudinal study of the effects of retention/promotion on academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 24(1), 107—118.
52.
PiersonL., and ConnellJ. P. (1992). Effect of grade retention on self-system processes, school engagement and academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 84(3), 300—307.
53.
ReardonS. (1996, April). Eighth grade minimum competency testing and early high school dropout patterns. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
54.
ReynoldsA. (1992). Grade retention and school adjustment: An exploratory analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(2), 101—121.
55.
RoderickM. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the association. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 729—759.
56.
RoderickM., BrykA. S., JacobB. A., EastonJ. Q., and AllensworthE. (1999). Ending social promotion: Results from the first two years. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
57.
RoderickM., and EngelM. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low achieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 197—227.
58.
RoderickM., EngelM., and NagaokaJ. (2003). Ending social promotion: Results from Summer Bridge. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
59.
RoderickM., JacobB., and BrykA. S. (2003). High stakes testing in Chicago, IL: Effects on achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 333—358.
60.
RoderickM., JacobB., and BrykA. S. (2004). Summer in the city: Achievement gains in Chicago's Summer Bridge program. In BormanG.D., and BoulayM. (Eds.), Summer learning: Research, policies and programs (pp. 73—102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
61.
RoderickM., and NagaokaJ. (2004). Retention under high stakes testing: Helpful, harmful, or harmless?
62.
RoderickM., NagaokaJ., BaconJ., and EastonJ. Q. (2000). Update: Ending social promotion in Chicago: Passing, retention and achievement trends among promoted and retained students. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
63.
RosenholtzS. J. (1987). Education reform strategies: Will they increase teacher commitment?American Journal of Education, 95, 534—562.
64.
RosenkranzT. (2001). 2001 CPS test trend review: Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
65.
RowanB. (1996). Standards as incentives for instructional reform. In FuhrmanS., and O'DayJ.A. (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 195—225). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
66.
SebringP. B., BrykA. S., RoderickM., and CamburnE. (1996). Charting reform in Chicago: The students speak. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
67.
SmithM. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20, 8—11.
68.
SmithB. A. (1998). It's about time: Opportunities to learn in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
69.
SmithB. A., DegenerS., and RoderickM. (2004). Extended learning time and student accountability: Assessing outcomes and options for elementary and middle grades. Education Administration Quarterly, 41(2), 195—236.
70.
SmithJ. B., SmithB. A., and BrykA. S. (1998). Setting the pace: Opportunities to learn in Chicago's elementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
71.
StoneS., and EngelM. (2005). Who gets retained and what happens to them?A qualitative analysis.
72.
StoneS. I., EngelM., NagaokaJ., and RoderickM. (2005). Getting it the second time around: Student classroom experience in Chicago's Summer Bridge Program. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 935—957.
73.
TompchinF. M., and ImparaJ. C. (1992). Unraveling teachers’ beliefs about grade retention. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 199—223.
74.
UrdanT. C., and ParisS. G. (1994). Teachers’ perceptions of standardized achievement tests. Educational Policy, 8(2), 137—156.
75.
WheelockA., BebellD., and HaneyW. (2000). Student self-portraits as test-takers: Variations, contextual differences, and assumptions about motivation. Teachers College Record. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from http://www.tcrecord.org