A review of current literature and practice suggests promising alternatives to social promotion and grade retention. The following five alternative strategies, which strike at the root causes of poor performance, offer genuine hope for helping all students to succeed: Intensify learning, provide professional development to ensure skilled teachers, expand learning options, assess students in a manner to assist teachers, and intervene in time to arrest poor performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Federation of Teachers (AFT). 1997. Passing on failure: District promotion policies and practices. Washington, D.C: AFT. Available: www.aft.org/edissues/socialpromotion/index.htm.
2.
Ballinger, C.1995. Prisoners no more. Educational Leadership53 (3): 28-31.
3.
Cook, C., and C. Fine. 1997. Finding time for professional development. Pathways to School Improvement. Available: www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/profdevl/pd300.htm.
4.
Costello, M.1996. Providing effective schooling for students at risk. Pathways to School Improvement. Available: www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at600.htm.
5.
Darling-Hammond, L.1997. Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
6.
Darling-Hammond, L.1998. Alternatives to grade retention. The School Administrator55 (7): 18-21.
7.
Denton, D.2001. Finding alternatives to failure: Can states end social promotion and reduce retention rates? Available: www.sreb.org/programs/srr/pubs/alternatives/AlternativesToFailure.pdf.
8.
Di Maria, M.1999. Issues of social promotion. New York: New York City Board of Education. ERIC, ED 437208.
9.
Eisner, C. (Ed.). 2000. Ending social promotion: Early lessons learned. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education and Council of the Great City Schools.
10.
Hartke, K.1999. The misuse of tests for retention. Thrust for Educational Leadership28 (3): 22-24.
11.
Hauser, R.1999. Should we end social promotion? Truth and consequences. CDE Working Paper No. 99-06. Madison, Wisc.: Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
12.
Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade-level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention edited by L. A. Shepard and M. L. Smith. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
13.
Illinois State Board of Education. 2000. Early reading intervention: A primer for school administrators and education policy makers [Pamphlet]. Springfield, Ill.: Illinois State Board of Education. Available: www.illinoisreads.com/htmls/kit-resources/early_intervention.pdf
14.
Karweit, N. L.1991, May. Repeating a grade: Time to grow or denial of opportunity? Report No. 16. Baltimore: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.
15.
McCollum, P., A. Cortez, O. Maroney, and F. Montes1999. Failing our children: Finding alternatives to in-grade retention. Policy Brief; San Antonio, Tex.: Intercultural Development Research Association. Available: www.idra.org/Research/ingrade.pdf.
16.
National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). 1998. Student grade retention and social promotion. Bethesda, Md.: NASP. Available:www.nasponline.org/information/pospaper-graderetent.html.
17.
Newmann, E M., A. S. Bryk, and J. K. Nagoaka. 2001. Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence?Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Reform.
18.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). 2000. Indicator: Engaging learning environments. Naperville, Ill: NCREL. Available: www.ncrel.org/engauge/framewk/efp/environ/efpenvin.htm.
19.
Owings, W., and S. Magliaro. 1998. Grade retention: A history of failure. Educational Leadership56 (1): 86-88.
20.
Pattison, C., and N. Berkas. 2000. Integrating standards into the curriculum. Pathways to School Improvement. Available: www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/currclum/cu300.htm.
21.
Peterson, K.1995. Creating high-achieving learning environments. Pathways to School Improvement. Available: www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le400.htm.
22.
Pikulski, J.1998. Preventing reading problems: Factors common to successful early intervention programs. Available: www.eduplace.com/rdg/res/prevent.html.
23.
Porter, A.1995. Integrating assessment and instruction in ways that support learning. Pathways to School Improvement. Available: www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as500.htm.
24.
Reynolds, J., B. Barnhart, and B. Martin. 1999. Looping: A solution to the retention vs. social promotion dilemma?ERS Spectrum17 (2): 16-20.
25.
Roderick, M.1995. Grade retention and school dropout: Policy debate and research questions. Available: www.pdkintl.org/edres/resbullxs5.htm.
26.
Shepard, L. A., and M. L. Smith. 1987. Effects of kindergarten retention at the end of first grade. Psychology in the Schools24 (4): 346-357.
27.
Staff Development for Educators. 2000. Prisoners of time: Too much to teach, not enough time to teach it. Peterborough, N.H.: Crystal Springs Books.
28.
Thompson, C., and E. Cunningham. 2000. Retention and social promotion: Research and implications for policy. ERIC Digest. ERIC, ED 449241. Available: http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edui.
29.
Tomlinson, C. A.1999. The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
30.
Tomlinson, C. A.2000. Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC Digest. ERIC, ED 443572. Available: http://ericece.org.
31.
University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. 1999. Alternative calendars: Extended learning and year-round programs. Available: http://education.umn.edu/CAREI/Reports/ReportLArchive/WGAltCalendars.html.
32.
U.S. Department of Education. 1999. Taking responsibility for ending social promotion: A guide for educators and state and local officials. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Available: www.ed.gov/pubs/socialpromotion/.
33.
Wheelock, A.1998. Extra help and support to meet standards and prevent grade retention. Boston: Consortium for Equity in Standards and Testing. Available: http://wwwcsteep.bc.edu/ctestweb/retention/retention2.html.
