In an aggregate analysis of schools in Florida's largest district, the implementation of a 1980s high-stakes reform, which relied heavily on grade retention to raise standards, was examined. If retention is assumed to be a necessary component of remediation, it is necessary that the retentions bear a strong relationship to student academic performance. However, for most of the elementary and middle grades examined that relationship was found to hold mainly for the more affluent schools. This result was ascribed to behaviors resulting from the high-stakes pressures. Seventh grade was an exception; the relationship between test performance and retention applied across all schools. The exception was attributed to conditions unique to that grade.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allington, R. L., and A. McGill-Franzen. 1992. Unintended effects of educational reform in New York. Educational Policy6: 397-414.
2.
Burnett, G.1995. Alternatives to ability grouping: Still unanswered questions. ERIC/CRESS Digest. ERIC, ED 390947.
3.
Cannon, A.1996. Governors talk tough on school standards. The Miami Herald.
4.
Coleman, J. S.1957. Community conflict. New York: The Free Press.
5.
de Vise, D.1999. Broward schools brace for crisis. The Miami Herald.
6.
Educational Research Service (ERS). 1998. Ability grouping: Effects and alternatives. Arlington, Va.: ERS.
7.
Firing Line. 1992. A report card for schools. Telecast transcript No. 927, distributed by Southern Educational Communications Association, Columbia, S.C.
8.
Froman, T.1993. On the relationship between standardized test scores and class-room grades. Miami, Fla.: Dade County Public Schools, Office of Educational Accountability.
9.
Gottfredson, G. D.1988. You get what you measure-You get what you don't: Higher standards, higher test scores, more retention in grade. Centerfor Research on Elementary and Middle Schools. Report 29. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.
10.
Governor's Commission on the Reform of Education. (GCRE). 1990. Reforming education in Florida. Tallahassee, Fla.: GCRE.
11.
Hanson, M. K.2000. MDCPS 1998-99 charter schools review. Office of Evaluation and Research, Report No. PLCY-00-01. Miami, Fla.: Miami-Dade County Public Schools.
12.
Heubert, J. P., and R. M. Hauser.1999. High stakes: Testingfor tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
13.
Karweit, N. L.1992. Retention policy. In Encyclopedia of educational research, 6th ed. edited by M. Alkin. New York: Macmillan.
14.
Lawton, M.1997. Promote or retain? Pendulum for students swings back again. Education Week. 1, 37-37.
15.
Linn, R. L.2000. Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher29 (2): 4-16.
16.
McPartland,J. H., R. Coldiron, and J. H. Braddock. 1987. A description of school structures and classroom practices in elementary, middle, and secondary schools. Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools Report14. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.
17.
Moe, T. M., and K. W. Shotts. 1995. Computer models of educational institutions: The case of vouchers and social equity. In The politics of education and the new institutionalism edited by R. L. Crowson, WV. L. Boyd, and H. B. Mawhinney. Washington, D.C.: Falmer.
18.
Morris, D. R. 1991. Structural patterns and change in grade retention rates: An aggregate analysis of data from a large urban school district, 1982-1989. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
19.
Morris, D. R.1993. Patterns of aggregate grade-retention rates. American Educational Research Journal30: 497-514.
20.
Morris, D. R. 1994. Is real progress in education being concealed by the operation of the reform process? Some insights from a system dynamics simulation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Tampa.
21.
Morris, D. R.1996. Institutionalization and the reform process. Educational Policy10: 427-447.
22.
Morris, D. R.1997a. A simulation modelfor intradistrict public school choice. Office of Evaluation and Research, Report No. PLCY-97-02a. Miami, Fla.: Dade County Public Schools.
23.
Morris, D. R. 1997b. Structural consequences of retention policies: The use of computer models to inform policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Orlando.
24.
Morris, D. R. and M.K Hawson. 1993. Consequences of reform: Retention rate fluctuations in Dade County. In S. Bacharach and R. Ogawa. Advances in research and theory of school management and educational policy. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
25.
Natale, J. A.1991. Promotion or retention?The Executive Educator15: 15-18.
26.
Oakes, J.1985. Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Pallas, A. M., G. Natriello, and E. L. McDill. 1995. Changing students/changing needs. In Changing populations, changing schools: Ninety-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Population. Part II edited by E. Flaxman and A. H. Passow. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. ERIC, ED 382743.
29.
Poe, J.1997. For students, a summer of drills. The Chicago Tribune.
30.
Raspberry, W.1999. The low road to better test scores. The Washington Post National Weekly Edition27-27.
31.
Shepard, L., and M. Smith. 1989. Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. New York: Falmer Press.
32.
Urdan, T. C., and M. L. Maehr. 1995Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research65: 213-243.
33.
Yardley, W. and S. Hegarty. 2000. Education chief: 15% of 4th graders to failSt. Petersburg Times Published January 11, 2000.
