Retaining students in grade docx

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND Corporation. 6 Jump down to document THE ARTS CHILD POLICY CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Education View document details For More Information Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution Support RAND This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discus- sions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research profes- sionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for re- search quality and objectivity. Retaining Students in Grade Lessons Learned Regarding Policy Design and Implementation Julie A. Marsh, Daniel Gershwin, Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Nailing Xia Prepared for the New York City Department of Education EDUCATION The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R ® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2009 RAND Corporation Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/ permissions.html). Published 2009 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org The research described in this report was prepared for the New York City Department of Education and conducted within RAND Education, a unit of the RAND Corporation. - iii - PREFACE Many states and districts are moving toward test-based requirements for promotion at key transitional points in students’ schooling careers, thus ending the practice of “social promotion”— promoting students without regard for how much they have learned. The rationale for retention is that repetition of the grade will give students an additional year to master the academic content they failed to master the previous year, and, thus, students should be less at risk for failure when they go on to the next grade. Opponents of grade retention argue that prior research has shown that grade retention disproportionately affects low-income and minority children and is associated with low self-esteem, problem behaviors, and an increased risk of dropping out of school. In 2003–2004, the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) implemented a new promotion and retention policy for 3rd-grade students in New York City (NYC) public schools. The policy was extended to grade 5 in 2004–2005, grade 7 in 2005–2006, and grade 8 in 2008– 2009. NYCDOE asked the RAND Corporation to conduct an independent longitudinal evaluation of the 5th-grade social promotion policy and to examine the outcomes for two cohorts of 3rd-grade students. This four-year study—conducted between March 2006 and August 2009—examined (1) policy implementation, factors affecting implementation, and implementation progress over time; (2) the impact of the policy on student academic and socioemotional outcomes; and (3) the links between implementation and desired outcomes. The study included a review of states and districts (other than NYC) that had implemented grade retention policies that were similar to the NYC promotion policy, featuring interviews with state and district officials regarding their successes, challenges, and lessons learned regarding policy design and implementation. This report presents the results of that effort and is one in a series of reports documenting the findings of the evaluation of the NYC promotion policy. Xia and Kirby (2009) and McCombs, Kirby, and Mariano (2009) provide a review of the literature on grade retention and findings from the overall evaluation, respectively. These three reports should interest policymakers, practitioners, and researchers involved in designing, implementing, or studying interventions to improve outcomes for low-performing students. This research was conducted by RAND Education, a unit of the RAND Corporation. - v - CONTENTS Preface iii Tables vii Summary ix Acknowledgments xv Abbreviations xvii I. Introduction 1 Purpose of This Report 2 What We Know About the Effects of Grade Retention and Promotion Policy Design and Implementation 3 Effect of Grade Retention on Proximal and Future Outcomes 3 Effect of Supportive Interventions on Student Achievement 4 Organization of This Report 5 2. A Brief Overview of NYC’s Promotion Policy 7 Criteria for Promotion 7 Key Components 8 3. Sample Selection and Methodology 11 4. Overview of State and District Promotion and Retention Policies and Programs 17 Design Features 17 Identification and Support for Students at Risk of Retention 22 Accounting for Variation in Policies 25 5. Perceived Challenges and Promising Strategies 27 Building and Sustaining Stakeholder Support 27 Investing in Strategies to Build and Sustain Stakeholder Support 27 Preparing for and Gradually Phasing in the Policy 30 Lack of Parent Understanding and Support 31 Beliefs and Attitudes About Retention 32 Pressure to Revise and Repeal Policies 33 - vi - Setting Criteria for Promotion 35 Basing Promotion on Reliable Measures of Student Performance 35 Providing Local Discretion and Alternatives Without Undermining the Policy 37 Strategies to Manage the “Loophole” Tension 40 Providing and Aligning Incentives for Schools and Students 43 Identifying At-Risk Students 46 Providing Student Interventions and Support 50 Providing Sustained, Consistent, and High-Quality Support 50 Ensuring Continuity and Concentrated Support Through Summer School Programs 56 Student Mobility 58 Lack of Funding 58 Building Capacity and Staffing 59 Providing Teacher Professional Development 59 Staffing Remediation Programs and Gateway Grades 61 Monitoring of Implementation and Outcomes 63 Inability to Adequately Monitor Implementation and Effects 63 Constraining Factors 65 Summary 66 6. Conclusions 69 Summary of Findings 69 Lessons to Consider 70 Appendix. Supporting Tables for Chapter Four 75 References 89 - vii - TABLES Table 3.1. State and District Sample 13 Table 3.2. Sample State and District Demographic Data 16 Table 5.1. Summary of Perceived Challenges and Promising Strategies 67 Table A.1. State Promotion Policies (K–8), 2008–2009 76 Table A.2. District Promotion Policies (K–8), 2008–2009 78 Table A.3. State Identification and Intervention (K–8), 2008–2009 83 Table A.4. District Identification and Intervention (K–8), 2008–2009 85 [...]... of identifying students early, focusing on individual students, and using interim assessment data and data systems to identify and monitor at-risk students • High-quality intervention and support Many respondents in both years reported specific challenges with the provision of support to at-risk students including maintaining student attendance, ensuring consistency of quality, implementing after-school... meta-analyses included summer school programs focusing on a variety of goals, including remedial interventions and accelerated learning Although all students appeared to benefit from attending summer school, students from middle-class households showed larger positive effects than students from disadvantaged households In terms of remedial summer programs, results indicate that students in the earliest grades... and summer programs, identifying best practices for high-needs students, supporting students who have - xi - been retained, and sustaining the progress of at-risk students A few officials provided examples of what they believed to be effective, high-quality supports for students • Building capacity and staffing In both years, several officials noted great difficulty in providing adequate professional... programs than the states in our sample (e.g., standardized curriculum, required hours/duration, student-teacher ratios) Most locales also require continuing support in the following year for students retained or promoted via alternative criteria without meeting the formal promotion criteria (e.g., individual learning plan) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: PERCEIVED CHALLENGES AND PROMISING STRATEGIES Interviews with state... of being retained are identified through prior-year test results, in- class assessments, and teacher/principal recommendations, and their parents or guardians are informed of their children’s status Support Services Students who have been identified as in need of services are to receive additional instructional support in school, including differentiated instruction in the classroom and other intervention... interviews in 2006) As Table 3.1 illustrates, only one of the original 12 sites did not respond to our request for interviews in 2008, and we added several new districts In total, we interviewed 17 individuals in 2008: Some were the same individuals from 2006; in other cases, the original respondent was no longer working at the state or district, so we interviewed the replacement or another administrator... period of implementation to gain and sustain widespread support Some ideas mentioned by our respondents included dedicating a phone line and support staff to - xii - answer questions, creating a teacher council to provide input on the policy, and providing ongoing “fluff-up or rev-up” training for new and veteran staff Consider incentives and consequences at all levels Across interviews, officials often... tracking how decisions were made, requiring documentation of evidence, conducting random audits) may also help in managing this tension Expand the timeline for identification and support of at-risk students Officials should consider identifying at-risk students and providing them support early in their school careers and paying careful attention to students in the years after promotion and retention... of student interventions and support Officials should consider several facets of these programs and services that appear to be important, including encouraging participation among eligible students; encouraging student attendance; recruiting qualified teachers and instructors; establishing enough time in extended-learning programs for instructors to adequately cover the material and for students to... Left Behind Act NYC New York City NYCDOE New York City Department of Education RTI Response to Intervention - xvii - I INTRODUCTION In an era emphasizing educational standards and accountability, many states and districts are moving toward test-based requirements for promotion at key transitional points in students schooling careers, thus ending the practice of “social promotion”—promoting students . objectivity. Retaining Students in Grade Lessons Learned Regarding Policy Design and Implementation Julie A. Marsh, Daniel Gershwin, Sheila Nataraj Kirby, Nailing. 3rd -grade students in New York City (NYC) public schools. The policy was extended to grade 5 in 2004–2005, to grade 7 in 2005–2006, and to grade 8 in 2007–2008.