The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences exist in the availability of instructional options for struggling students and students who did not pass state-required tests based on three school characteristics: retention practices, awards or sanctions, and school level. Participants were 242 teachers and school psychologists from 99 elementary and middle or junior high schools across 19 states that have required exit exams. Participants were asked to complete a survey that addressed the availability of instructional options. Descriptive statistics showed that there was overlap in the instructional options that respondents reported using frequently regardless of school characteristics. For general education teachers' responses, there was a significant main effect of school level. For special education teachers and school psychologists, all other main effects and interactions were not significant.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barnett, K.P., Clarizio, H.F., & Payette, K.A. (1996). Grade retention among students with learning disabilities . Psychology in the Schools, 33, 285—293.
2.
Christenson, S.L., Picklo, D.M., Triezenberg, H.L., Anderson, A.R., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2004). Consequences of high-stakes assessment for students with and without disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
3.
Clinton, W. (1998). State of the union address (January 1, 1998). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
4.
Clinton, W. (1999). State of the union address (January 1, 1999). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
5.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Standards of practice for learner-centered schools . New York: Columbia University, National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching (NCREST) .
6.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Alternatives to grade retention. The School Administrator, 55(7), 18—21.
7.
Davison, M.L., Davenport, E.C., Kwak, N., Peterson, K.A., Irish, M.L., Seo, Y.S., et al. (2002). The “No Child Left Behind” Act and Minnesota's standards, assessments, and accountability: 2002 policy brief. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Office of Educational Accountability.
8.
Defur, S.H. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities: One state's approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 203—211.
9.
Denton, D.R. (2001). Finding alternatives to failure: Can states end social promotion and reduce retention rates?Atlanta, GA : Southern Regional Education Board.
10.
Elliott, J.L., & Thurlow, M.L. (2001). Improving test performance of students with disabilities on district and state assessments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11.
Holmes, C.T. (1989). Grade-level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 16—33). London : Falmer Press.
12.
Holmes, C.T., & Matthews, K.M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54, 225—236.
13.
Jackson, G. (1975). The research evidence of the effects of grade retention. Review of Educational Research, 45, 613—635.
14.
Jimerson, S. (1999). On the failure of failure: Examining the association between early grade retention and education and employment outcomes during late adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 243—272.
15.
Jimerson, S. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review , 30, 420—437.
16.
Jimerson, S., Carlson, E., Rotert, M., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L.A. (1997). A prospective, longitudinal study of the correlates and consequences of early grade retention. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 3—25.
17.
McCay, E. (Ed.). (2001). Moving beyond retention and social promotion [special issue]. Phi Delta Kappa International.
18.
McCollum, P., Cortez, A., Maroney, H., & Montes, F. (1999). Failing our children: Finding alternatives to in-grade retention. San Antonio, TX: Intercultural Development Research Association. Retrieved June 24, 2003, from http://www.idra.org/Research/ingrade.htm#Ingrade
19.
McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morrison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20.
McLeskey, J., & Grizzle, K.L. (1992). Grade retention rates among students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 548—554.
21.
National Association of School Psychologists. ( 1998). Position statement: Student retention and social promotion . Silver Spring, MD: Author.
22.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. ( 1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23.
National Dropout Prevention Center. (n.d.). NDPC policy statement on student grade retention. Retrieved June 24, 2003, from http://www.dropoutprevention.org/retent_policy/retent_policy.htm
24.
Owings, W.A., & Kaplan, L.S. (2001). Standards, retention, and social promotion. NASSP Bulletin, 85(629), 57—66.
25.
Quenemoen, R.F., Lehr, C.A., Thurlow, M.L., Thompson, S.J., & Bolt, S. (2000). Social promotion and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges in developing state policies (Synthesis Report No. 34) . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 19, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis34
26.
Roderick, M. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the association. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 729—759.
27.
Roderick, M., Bryk, A.S., Jacob, B.A., Easton, J.Q., & Allensworth, E. (1999). Ending social promotion: Results from the first two years. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
28.
Roderick, M., & Engel, M. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low-achieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 197—227.
29.
Roderick, M., Jacob, B.A., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 333—357.
30.
Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. (1990). Synthesis of research on grade retention. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 84—88.
31.
Smirk, J. (2001). Alternatives to retention. NASSP Bulletin, 85(629), 3—15.
32.
Thompson, C.L., & Cunningham, E.K. (2000). Retention and social promotion: Research and implications for policy (Report No. EDO-UD-00-0). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449241).
33.
Thurlow, M.L., & Johnson, D.R. (2000). High-stakes testing of students with disabilities . Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 305—314.
34.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Taking responsibility for ending social promotion: A guide for educators and state and local leaders. Retrieved January 8, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/socialpromotion/intro.html
