In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2002 (2002) 52-56



[Access article in PDF]

Comment by Andrew Rotherham

[Grade Retention and Social Promotion in Texas, 1994-99:
Academic Achievement among Elementary School Students]

Jon Lorence, A. Gary Dworkin, Laurence A. Toenjes, and Antwanette N. Hill provide empirical evidence to help inform the ongoing debate about grade retention and social promotion. Although their study does not put the issue to rest in favor of retention, it should cause participants in the debate to pause. Researchers can argue almost indefinitely about the significance of most findings, and this study is no exception. However, in a debate where ideology frequently trumps evidence, Lorence and his colleagues offer important information for the policy community, particularly because they contradict prevailing beliefs (and other significant studies) with data. I want to frame this discussion more with an eye toward the relevance of the authors' evidence to the policy debate instead of toward the statistical significance of the findings. Regardless of whether or not one supports policies to curtail social promotion, these policies are going to be a fixture of the education policy landscape for some time to come. And, although the authors provide a useful admonition not to generalize from these findings, because they involve only Texas, that will [End Page 52] inevitably happen and thus a discussion of some other more general issues is important.

Because this study is based on Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) data, it brings a host of other issues into play. Whether one comes to praise or bury Texas, strong feelings arise about the reforms and changes that have occurred and are ongoing there. As the authors point out, one reason for the results they found could be the accountability system in place in Texas. This system is causing attention and energy, as well as resources, to be directed at the group of students who are affected by social promotion policies. In addition, the accountability system's focus on disaggregated results also provides data that are useful for informing this discussion. Finally, Texas has not worked to address teacher professional development and overall teacher quality issues with the vigor of some other states. In light of the results to date, one wonders how much more substantial progress might have been made if, in addition to the other measures that were put in place, the state undertook sustained efforts to address teacher quality.

Unfortunately, the debate is frequently framed as simply about social promotion versus retention, as simply a matter of policy with little nuance. The authors point out the false choice of this dialogue. First, policy must be constructed to address a glaring deficiency. Except perhaps for absurdly low standards, some students will always struggle to meet academic standards, and supports need to be in place to help them. The scale of this challenge in some areas, particularly low-income school districts, is staggering. A larger, related issue is the chronic failure to educate a large number of students, predominately poor and minority students. And, while many will protest that no district has in place a policy of social promotion, the evidence is clear that a de facto policy frequently exists. Second, the polarized nature of the debate belies the fact that evidence does not overwhelmingly support one position or the other. Neither of the stark alternatives offers much educationally. Simply promoting children from grade to grade or just retaining them for second year of instruction that obviously fell short the first time is something of a Hobson's choice for students.

Four policy implications follow from this study, which policymakers must consider as part of the dialogue about grade retention and social promotion. These are time, interventions, school effectiveness, and assessments.

Time is a crucial element because, too often, it is treated as a constant rather than a variable. This is largely an outgrowth of inertia and the antiquated way school districts and schools are organized, for example, in terms of work [End Page 53] rules and school calendars. But where it is set down in stone that a student at age X must be in grade Y? Changing this...

pdf

Share