White, Y - FSE_Dissertation_Template_2013 (1)

7/27/2019 White, Y - FSE_Dissertation_Template_2013 (1)

1/57

The Effects of Grade Retention and Remediation on

the Academic Performance, Social and Behavioral Issues, and Attendance of At Risk

Middle School Students

by

Yolonda Katrina White

An Applied Dissertation Submitted to the

Abraham S. Fischler School of Education

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsfor the Degree of Doctor of Education

Nova Southeastern University2013


2/57

Approval Page

This applied dissertation was submitted by [Insert Name] under the direction of thepersons listed below. It was submitted to the Abraham S. Fischler School of Education

and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of

Education at Nova Southeastern University.

[Katrina Pann, PhD] Date

Committee Chair

[Nydia Cummings, PhD] Date

Committee Member

Program Professor Review [as isno name] Date

Applied Research Center

Mary Ann Lowe, SLPD Date

Associate Dean

ii


3/57

Statement of Original Work

I declare the following:

I have read the Code of Student Conduct and Academic Responsibility as described in the

Student Handbookof Nova Southeastern University. This applied dissertation represents

my original work, except where I have acknowledged the ideas, words, or material ofother authors.

Where another authors ideas have been presented in this applied dissertation, I haveacknowledged the authors ideas by citing them in the required style.

Where another authors words have been presented in this applied dissertation, I have

acknowledged the authors words by using appropriate quotation devices and citations inthe required style.

I have obtained permission from the author or publisherin accordance with the required

guidelinesto include any copyrighted material (e.g., tables, figures, survey instruments,large portions of text) in this applied dissertation manuscript.

___________________________Signature

Yolonda Katrina White_________Name

___________________________

Date

iii


4/57

Abstract

The Effects of Grade Retention and Remediation on the Academic Performance, Socialand Behavioral Issues, and Attendance of At Risk Middle School Students. Yolonda

White, 2013: Applied Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Abraham S. Fischler

School of Education. ERIC Descriptors: Retention, No Child Left Behind (NCLB),Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), Academics, Improvement,

Remediation

This applied dissertation will study the effects of grade retention and remediation on the

academic performance, social and behavioral issues, and attendance of at risk middle

school students. Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) scores, social

concerns, behavior issues, and attendance will be compared pre and postretention/remediation. Research shows that grade retention is widely practiced

throughout the country as a solution for improving test scores and academic performance,

though it is unclear if this solution is effective. Most studies have shown that grade

retention has not had a positive effect on students. In fact, some researchers assert thatthere have been more negative results than positive outcomes associated with grade

retention (Hong & Raudenbush, 2005).

iv


5/57

Table of Contents

PageChapter 1: Introduction........................................................................................................1

Setting......................................................................................................................2

Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................3Definition of Terms..................................................................................................6

Purpose of the Study................................................................................................6

Chapter 2: Literature Review...............................................................................................8

Conceptual Framework............................................................................................8

Synthesis of Findings.............................................................................................10

Further Research....................................................................................................31

Research Questions................................................................................................34

Chapter 3: Methodology....................................................................................................35

Participants.............................................................................................................35Instruments.............................................................................................................36

Remediation...........................................................................................................39

Procedures..............................................................................................................41Limitations.............................................................................................................42

Chapter 4: Results..................................................................................................................

Xxxxxxxxxx xxx Xxxxxxxxx xx Xxxxxxxxx...........................................................Xxxxxxxxxxx xx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx....................................................................

Xxxxxx xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx.....................................................................................

Chapter 5: Discussion............................................................................................................

Xxxxxxxx...................................................................................................................Xxxxxxxxxx...............................................................................................................

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.....................................................................................................

Xxxxxxxx xx Xxxx....................................................................................................

References..............................................................................................................................

AppendicesA Title in Initial Caps and Lower CaseBegin a Second Line Directly Below

the First Line.......................................................................................................

B Title in Initial Caps and Lower Case .................................................................Tables

1 Title in Initial Caps and Lower Case..................................................................

2 Title in Initial Caps and Lower Case..................................................................

v


6/57

Figure

Title in Initial Caps and Lower Case.........................................................................

vi


7/57

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The focus of this study will be the effects of grade retention and remediation on

the academic performance, social and behavioral issues, and attendance of at risk middle

school students. Picklo and Christenson (2005) define grade retention as requiring a

student to remain at his or her current grade level for the following school year. The

practice of grade retention has been controversial for many years. Hong & Raudenbush

(2005) stated that retention has been shown to be a negative experience for children by

limiting their learning opportunities. Even when academic gains are made, their

subsequent achievement is equal to, or lower than, that of both same-grade and same-age

regularly promoted students within 2-3 years (Powell, 2007). According to Leckrone and

Griffith (2006), the practice of retaining children has been steadily increasing over the

past three decades. The central argument for grade retention is that if students have not

mastered math and reading skills on tests, they would be better served by repeating a

grade and gaining those skills than by struggling with more advanced material (Roderick

& Nagaoka, 2005).

Powell (2007) explained that until July 2006, Florida law mandated remediation

in the form of an Academic Improvement Plan (AIP) for each child who was performing

below grade level, which would have included those who scored at Levels 1 or 2 on the

FCAT-Reading. These plans were to consist of instructional modifications as well as

clear and measurable academic goals that related to individual skill deficiencies.

Examples of instructional modifications included pull-out services, one-on-one tutor

instruction, peer tutor, and the employment of reading coaches. The implementation of


8/57

2

an AIP also includes periodic evaluation to determine if retained students were making

progress towards their academic goals.

Setting

The School District of Lee County (2010) stated that students entering the 6th

grade in 2006-2007 and beyond are required to successfully complete specific academic

courses to be promoted to the 9th grade. For students in grades 6-12, reading courses shall

be designed and offered pursuant to the Comprehensive Reading Plan required by Florida

Statute. All students who score Level 1 or 2 on FCAT Reading are required to take an

intensive reading course the following school year. Students who score level 1 or 2 on

FCAT mathematics will also be required to receive remediation the next year. Finally,

students who score lower than Level 3 on the 8th grade FCAT writing test will be required

to receive remediation the following year.

Students who have not met the requirements to be promoted to the 9th grade shall

be retained except for good cause. Good cause must be based on performance,

diagnostic and observation data, the students history, and a review of their special needs.

Students cannot be placed in a grade based only on age or other factors that constitute

social promotion. There must be appropriate alternative placements for students who

have been retained two or more years (The School District of Lee County, 2010). The

participants that will be selected for this study will come from the Alternative Learning

Center (ALC) middle school. ALC middle school is where students are sent for a

minimum of forty-five days when they have too many behavior issues at their regular

school.


9/57

3

Statement of the Problem

The problem to be addressed in the proposed study is that mandatory retention is

being imposed on this at risk middle school population, though the effects of student

grade retention are unclear. Bowman (2005) stated that studies have shown that the

retention of students does not improve their academic performance. Documented

academic gains for retained students are often minimal and short-lived. Holmes (2006)

explained that this issue is of particular relevance for middle school students who are

eleven more times likely to drop out of school when they are retained. Grade retention is

also associated with behavior problems in students. In the proposed study, an at risk

middle school population will be studied to examine the effectiveness of grade retention

and remediation on academic performance, social issues, behavior issues, and

absenteeism.

The topic. Bowman (2005) stated that while grade retention does not show

improvement in student performance, it is widely practiced in schools throughout the

country. The belief that an additional year of schooling will enhance academic outcomes

is a reason for retaining a child. Those who are against retention argue that it is not

beneficial to students academic progress. The expense to childrens self-esteem is too

great, and it has a correlation with dropping out of school. However, student retention

remains a common practice in schools. Although retention may be helpful to some

students education, it brings about serious challenges for those retained students who

have not shown improvement. Many experts believe that retention should not be the first

solution to a childs lack of achievement in school, rather other options to retention

should be considered. Students who are retained often still do not perform on grade level


10/57

4

(Bowman, 2005), though they are typically given remediation and/or assigned to

intensive classes when their test scores are low.

Background and justification.Leckrone and Griffith (2006) explained that the

effectiveness of grade retention has been a topic of discussion for over a hundred years.

Although retention rates continue to increase, no long-term benefit for students have been

found in academic learning, or social, and behavioral adjustment. Some studies on the

high use of retention in the lower or primary grades show that young children perform

better immediately following grade retention. However, other studies have shown that

students who repeat perform worse academically than carefully matched peers who have

been promoted (Leckrone and Griffith, 2006).

Deficiencies in the evidence.Allen, Chen, Wilson, & Hughes (2009) described a

meta-analysis study that observed the impact of grade retention on academic outcomes

and examines systemic sources of variability in effect sizes. The study researched two

within group variables: grade retained and the number of years since the retention

intervention. These variables were different across effect size within studies, challenging

the widely held view that retention has a negative effect on achievement. It is often

believed among educators that retention is more advantageous in the early grades (Allen,

Chen, Wilson, & Hughes, 2009). However, recent studies show that the outcomes of

retention in the early grades on long-term adjustment either are not different from those at

later grades or are more negative. The comparison of retained students to their same-age

classmates, show that the effects are usually negative in the short term but then plateau or

become more positive with time (Silberglitt, Jimerson, Burns, & Appletons, 2006).


11/57

5

Leckrone & Griffith (2006) explained that as retention continues to increase, the

findings of research regularly show no long-term benefit for students either in academic

learning or social and behavioral adjustment. The investigators longitudinal study

determined that retained students showed exacerbated behavior issues by grade 6,

whereas their low-achieving but promoted peers behavior remained stable. Considerable

increases in behavior issues were observed for retained students, which became more

obvious in adolescence.

Deficiencies in the evidence are the specific impact that grade retention has on

academic performance. It is not truly known that grade retention consistently has a

negative or a positive impact on students academics. Either there is academic

improvement or there is not academic improvement with grade retention. Once the

studies consistently show that there has been a significant academic gain and

improvement upon retained students, then there will be evidence of the impact that

retention has on academic performance.

Audience. The audience will be parents, educators, and the community. Parents

of retained students will benefit from this research by being informed about the impact of

grade retention. Educators will learn more about the improvement of retained students.

The community will be made aware of what is taking place in the process of retaining

students. Meyer (2007) stated that teachers are responsible for teaching students what

they need to know for their tests. To be promoted to the next grade level students must

demonstrate that they have the knowledge that they need to move on. Social promotion

is a controversial issue that vexes school districts across the country. School districts can


12/57

6

develop their own policies on retaining students. Teachers and schools are held

accountable, and the students should not be left out of the equation.

Definition of Terms

Term or variable.

Academic improvement plan (AIP). Is a set of formalized instructional

modifications and related goals that are designed to address specific skills deficits in any

child who is not meeting academic benchmarks in a timely manner.

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). Is a standardized test designed

to measure student performance in reading, writing, and mathematics.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Is a federal legislation directly addressing the

reading crisis in the United States and establishing strict guidelines for school and state

accountability.

Remediation. The act or process of correcting a fault or deficiency.

Retention. Refers to the act of repeating a grade level.

Sunshine State Standards. A set of instructional benchmarks developed by the

Florida Department of Education.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of grade retention and

remediation on academic performance, social/emotional concerns, behavior issues, and

absenteeism of at risk middle school students in an alternative learning middle school.

This project will examine whether there is improvement on test scores with retained 6 th,

7th, and 8th grade students by comparing test scores before and after grade retention and

remediation. Retained students social and behavioral issues such as isolation,


13/57

7

disengagement, and misconduct will be studied to make comparisons before and after

grade retention and remediation. The attendance of retained students will also be

examined to see if there is a significant difference before and after grade retention and

remediation.


14/57


15/57

9

retention. Liberty involves freedom, independence, or choice. Equality includes social

equality and equality of results. Fraternity examines solidarity or brotherhood.

Efficiency and economic growth are the two factors considered within economic value.

Martin (2011) said that grade retention is underpinned by theories and attitudes

about child development and how this interfaces with views on school readiness and on

what bases a child is deemed fit for their cohort. The four views on child development

are: the nativist (internal clock) view, the environmental view, the interactionist position,

and the social constructivist view. All four views are potentially relevant to decisions

and advice about grade retention and grade promotion. The nativist view might be seen

as the basis for the decision to retain a student in a grade, if students are pushed beyond

their abilities or do not fit with their peers there is an increased risk of failure. The

social constructivist might predict retention on the basis of prior links to socio-economic

status, gender and ethnicity. The environmental and interactionist views may be seen as a

basis for grade promotion and decisions not to retain a student because they are aimed at

accommodating the range of normal variation in child development that can be

addressed by the school. The nativist (internal clock) view seems to make the most sense

for this study. The reason this view makes the most sense is that students are often

retained because they are not ready to be promoted to the next level, and if they are

moved on without being ready to, there is a greater chance that they may fail.

Lowery (2010) wrote that the controversy regarding the advantages of extra-year

practices including delayed entry, retention, and transitional programs can be tracked

back to theoretical beliefs. Supporters of extra year programs and transitional practices

follow the maturational train of thought in which development is considered an internal


16/57

10

process that will produce readiness over time. Those in opposition of the extra-year

practices and programs prefer theory advocated by Vygotsky. This theory advocates that

children can benefit from instruction in a developmentally appropriate classroom

environment. The maturational view considers development as an internal process that is

only marginally impacted by external forces in the environment. For example, Piaget

explained development as a series of sequential stages that all children follow. In

contrast, Vygotskys social constructivist theory stated that childrens development can

be stimulated by learning within the social context.

Synthesis of Findings

Witmer, Hoffman, & Nottis (2004) explained that several studies have examined

teachers beliefs about and their practice of retention but few have looked at teachers

knowledge of retention and its relationship to their practice. One study used the Teacher

Retention Beliefs and Knowledge Questionnaire (TRBKQ) to assess teachers knowledge

of retention research as well as their beliefs about retention. Teachers considered a

number of factors when deciding to retain or promote a student. They identified

students academic performance as the most influential factor. Additional factors such as

students ability, effort, and social and emotional maturity were also identified by

participants as playing important roles in their decision-making.

To date, research has centered on measuring the effects of retention on student

outcomes. The politics of retention studies suggest that, rather than representing a direct

response to student learning difficulties, retention also represents a response to district

organizational factors and policies. Retention holds particular appeal for conservative


17/57

11

constituents. It involves political benefits as well as poses educational dilemmas (Bali et

al., 2005).

Roderick and Nagaoka (2005) stated that retained students, particularly those who

did not meet the promotional cutoff at the end of their retained year, faced high rates of

special education placement. Within 2 years of the gate grade, from 17% to 20% of

retained grade 3 and 6 had been placed in special education. Most of these special

education placements came from students who did not meet the promotional cutoff their

second time in that grade. About half of the double retained students were placed in a

special education setting during their third time in the same grade. The district officially

stopped double retaining students and waived retained students who did not meet the test-

score cutoffs their second time through the grade. But the percentage of retained students

who were placed in special education remained high.

Adolescents who struggle with literacy typically beginning at grade 3 bring a

history of frustration and failure to their interactions with text. According to popular

resources for working with adolescents, in middle school this frustration is compounded

by the expectation that children are no longer learning to read, but instead reading to

learn. Research suggests that struggling middle school students meet with greater

success when offered a range of motivating activities that encourage reading and writing,

such as assignments that involve reading and writing practice. Curricula content and

teacher instruction is designed to be responsive to individual students needs and

interests. This occurs when the instruction is delivered accordingly. Another body of

research suggests that middle school students who struggle with reading and writing need

more explicit skill instruction (Casey, 2009).


18/57

12

Contrary to the belief that the gift of time will help students catch up, research

showed that struggling students do not usually catch up to comparable promoted peers.

To address the concept that repeating a grade will promote student achievement and

emotional adjustment, research demonstrated that retention is associated with negative

results in all academic areas, also in social issues and emotional adjustment. There is the

idea that retention does not harm, but research explained that retention is predictive of

many emotional, social, and behavioral issues. To discuss the thought that retention is

acceptable, whereas later retention is associated with deleterious outcomes, comparisons

of students who experienced retention early versus those who were retained later failed to

show benefits of early retention (Jimerson & Renshaw, 2012).

History of retention. Frey (2005) stated that the history of retention as an

educational practice for the remediation of students who fail to achieve has its roots in the

schoolhouses of mid-19-th century America. Schools were first legislated in

Massachusetts in 1647 to ensure that children learned to read the Bible as the way to

thwart the devil so that learning may not be buried in the graves of our fathers in the

church. Children were often taught to read and write at home, before they ever attended

school-literacy acquisition per se was not regarded as a function of schooling.

For decades, educators have endeavored to increase academic performance among

all students. In 2004, the Florida legislature passed the Florida Middle Grades Reform

Act (MGRA) due to concerns about the low number of students entering middle school as

proficient readers. The MGRA also addressed the number of students below reading

proficiency yet not enrolled in reading classes and the number of teachers delivering

reading instruction without proper certification. MGRA concerns were specific to the


19/57

13

implementation of instruction. Many of the most successful instructional planning

strategies emerge from schools and classrooms (Nelson, Fairchild, Grossenbacher, &

Landers, 2007).

Guevremont, Roos, & Brownell (2007) explained that whether to retain students

in their current grade remains a continuous issue. Several meta-analyses show that grade

retention does not offer more benefits to students with academic or adjustment difficulties

than promotion to the next grade. Retained students are more likely to drop out of school

than their peers that have not been retained. Retained students who graduate from high

school are less likely to enroll in postsecondary education than graduates with similar

socioeconomic status (SES) and achievement levels.

Despite the availability of other methods to assist poorly performing students,

grade retention is often proposed and used to help students catch up to their better

performing peers. However, most research on the effects of grade retention portrays it as

a practice that, at best provides no lasting benefit to the students and, at worst, is

considered a damaging practice. Identifying potential disparities in retention by

demographic and social background characteristics is important. The experience of

retention in grade is a powerful predictor of later success in schooling and beyond. The

predictive power of retention warrants tracking both retention rates and disparities in

them (Frederick & Hauser, 2008).

Remediation. James and Folorunson (2012) stated that remediation is the

process of leading learners to be aware of their errors in engaging in possible correction.

It is intended to correct deficiencies in learners, either individually or as a group. The

role remediation in the classroom is to be a leveling up device. Students who have failed


20/57

14

to master certain materials are allowed or provided the opportunity to level up with those

who have mastered them earlier. Research shows that students undergoing remediation

accomplished a greater number of objectives than students participating in an

instructional program that does not include remedial activities. Remediation activities

that provide alternate materials or instructional modes under the guidance of the teacher

appear to be superior to a student centered approach that encourages reading and

reviewing of the materials used during the initial instruction.

Students who are being considered for retention must have a written Student

Improvement Plan. This plan must include a recommendation for differentiated

instruction, which is a description of what is different in the classroom that will assist the

student in remedying their academic deficiencies. Differentiated instruction is a

substantial difference in the amount of the time available for instruction and practice and

in the instructional strategies used to teach the student (The School District of Lee

County, 2012). Any student from the previous school year who does not meet the district

identified minimum levels of performance in core subjects and/or statewide assessments,

must be provided remediation (Florida State University Schools, 2008).

Testing. Rupp and Lesaux (2006) explained that the use of standards-based

assessments at national and state levels to monitor students performance is widespread.

Standards-based assessments are typically administered at particular grades during

elementary, middle, and high schools. They reflect a push toward the integration of

sound assessments and instructional techniques improving school practices within

complex systems of educational reform. Many of the standards-based assessments have

evolved throughout their course of implementation such that their current uses go well


21/57

15

beyond their original design. Many affect curriculum design and instructional programs

by guiding classroom practice with respect to content and objectives, by identifying

students who are struggling, and by influencing subsequent remediation plans.

Dworkin (2005) said that critics of accountability systems involving high-stakes

testing have contended that these systems narrow the curricula to what is tested, promote

teaching to the test, encourage school personnel to cheat, produce heightened test-taking

skills without the actual learning of content, place too much emphasis on a single

indicator in violation of test theory, discriminate against students who have trouble with

multiple-choice tests, harm poor and minority-group members, and increase the dropout

rate. High-stakes testing could widen the achievement gaps among groups of students.

Some studies have suggested that accountability systems that use high-stakes testing

narrow the gaps in achievement.

Musoleno and White (2010) stated that prominent among the challenges that face

middle grades educators is the issue of high-stakes testing. Teachers and administrators

across the country have experienced the pressure associated with such testing. Meeting

adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals has become a factor in the use of instructional time

for test preparation. For those schools that cannot meet AYP- the correspondence can

include potential remediation or corrective measures or both. Accountability dominates

the discussion on assessment of classroom and school performance.

Across the country, the use of tests to determine grade promotion and graduation

has become common. Opponents of high-stakes testing (HST) worry that these policies

will have the unintended consequence of bringing about substantial increase in dropout

rates. There are two kinds of grade retention decisions- those made by an individual


22/57

16

teacher, and those resulting from district policies on who should be retained. The

literature on the first kind has formed the basis for concerns about holding students back.

Research on understanding the relationship between dropping out and retention under

HST has shown that students who have been held back are much more likely to drop out

of school than students who have not been retained (Allensworth, 2005).

McGill-Franzen and Allington (2006) explained that as a result of the mandates of

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), most students are expected to take a test at some time

during the school year to determine their levels and to monitor their progress. Many

districts try a variety of short-term and long-term interventions to prepare students for

their state mandated tests. Such short-term intervention is to provide students with test-

preparation activities. Test-preparation activities seem to be most popular in schools

with historically low achievement. Test preparation seems to be an attempt to improve

scores. There is little evidence that test preparation improves test performance, but if it

does, it must be considered another form of contamination of any accountability system.

A possible solution to this problem is to ban all but the most minimal test-preparation.

Concerned about falling reading test scores, Santa Clara County school district in

California mandated reading remediation for all grade 6 students and provided schools

with a basal reading program. Tracking students was not permissible because of court-

ordered desegregation, so students were placed in flexible reading groups. The program

began by determining student placement in leveled reading classes using a

comprehension test from the basal text reader. Individual reading teachers provided

instruction using the basal text reading program or class novel sets. Administrators


23/57

17

assigned teachers to reading classes based on experience. The reading program was

highly effective in improving most grade 6 students reading level (Ahrens, 2005).

Grade 3 students. Powell (2007) statedthat 60% of students retained in Grade 3

in 2003, scored at Levels 2 or higher on the grade 5 Florida Comprehensive Assessment

Test (FCAT) Reading 3 years in later in 2006. These findings suggest that retention was

associated with positive academic outcomes; after repeating the grade 3 curriculum and,

at least in terms of mandated policy, receiving intensive academic supports, almost two-

thirds of the retained students were successful in achieving a passing FCAT-Reading

score as defined by the state standards. Guevremont et al. (2007) explained that

consecutive Grade 3 standards tests examine if the performance of students retained in

Grade 3 improved the next year after retention. Short-term outcomes showed that one

fourth of the retained students performed better on the test in the second year than they

had in the first, whereas the remaining three fourths either failed or performed worse on

the test the second year.

One of the Florida reforms was to curtail social promotion of underachieving

students in Grade 3. In most school districts, students who do not warrant promotion on

academic grounds move on to the next grade level regardless, because many educators

believe that keeping students with their peer group is desirable. But in Florida, those

students who completed Grade 3 in the spring of 2003 and since have had to meet a

minimum threshold on the FCAT reading examination in order to be promoted, unless

they receive a special waiver. Due to this, the percentage of students retained in Grade 3

increased significantly. In the two years prior to the policy change, only 209 percent of

Grade 3 students were retained, while in the two years after the implementation of the


24/57

18

policy, 11.7 percent of Floridas Grade 3 students were retained the following school year

(Winters, 2012).

Educators. Powers, Zippay, and Butler (2006) explained that effective teachers

understand the interplay between curriculum, instruction, and assessment and

consistently plan instruction based on the curriculum and classroom assessment results.

Teachers should function as the primary decision makers and the assessment provides a

wealth of data that informs classroom decision-making. Assessment based on teacher

observation provides immediate results, whereas the results from some for assessments

may not arrive until after students have left a teachers classroom. Teachers need a range

of classroom-based alternative assessments to formal assessment used by most states to

access academic performance.

There is a good reason to critically examine classroom and school practices when

students are not making gains. Teacher preparedness and expertise are the most

important factors regarding students school performance. Teachers must be

knowledgeable, sensitive to students cultural differences, and come to class with a

variety of teaching strategies. They will be more likely to help students experience

academic success than those teachers who do not. Unfortunately, low-performing

schools, often characterized by culturally and linguistically diverse student populations,

are less likely to have well-qualified teachers, a challenging curriculum, and high

standards and expectations for students compared to high-performing schools (Bowman,

2005).

Radcliffe, Caverly, Hand, and Franke (2008) stated that a major concern among

middle school educators is low test scores for most students coupled with the lack of a


25/57

19

notable increase in students overall achievement scores on the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), a long-term trend in reading assessment. Reading in

middle school classrooms is common and important. Explicit strategies prompt students

to engage their prior knowledge and to monitor their comprehension. Despite evidence

of the effectiveness of these strategies, studies have shown that few teachers use them in

their instruction. To change their instructional routines, teachers likely need additional

support. What matters for student achievement are approaches that fundamentally

change what teachers and student do every day (Slavin, Cheung, Groff, & Lake, 2008).

Florida. Winters (2012) explained that among the 50 states, Floridas gains on

the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) from 1992 to 2011 ranked

second only to Marylands. Floridas progress has been particularly impressive in the

early grades. In 1998, Florida scored approximately one grade level below the national

average on the 4thgrade NAEP reading test, but it was scoring above that average by

2003, and made more gains in following years. Floridas scores on its own state

examinations showed an equally dramatic increased trend. Powell (2007) said that

Florida has chosen a relatively radical response to dramatic changes in federal policy.

Retention is thought of as an insufficient method for the improvement of below grade

level students; the development of new guidelines and procedures for retention require

current literature researching the structure of retention and remediation.

The key components of NCLB are not new. NCLB mandates both assessments

and accountability across all states. It seeks to eliminate gaps in test scores among

varying racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, home-language, and special education status

groups by the academic year 2013-2014. The act will extend debates over high-stakes


26/57

20

testing, the assessment of AYP for schools, and equity in the treatment of schools that are

in need of improvement (INOI) (Dworkin, 2005).

Kelly and Moncunski (2007) stated that NCLB supports the increased trend

toward test-based accountability. Accountability regimes are designed to increase

achievement growth and promote equality of educational opportunity. With these goals

in mind, schools are now identified as in need of improvement or failing to make AYP

by a formula that individual states create, emphasizing progress towards all students

being proficient on standardized tests. Action taken against schools for failure to meet

AYP in consecutive years, required NCLB for Title I schools, escalates, culminating in

reconstitution of the schools.

NCLB directs schools to be accountable for meeting academic achievement

standards in reading and math for Grades 3-8. Mastery of basic literacy skills is essential

for success in meeting content-area course expectations in middle and secondary schools.

With more push towards outcomes, schools must ensure that struggling readers receive

proper reading instruction to meet these expectations. Educators have long argued that

teaching literacy skills to struggling readers increases reading abilities (Dilberto, Beattie,

Flowers, & Agozzine, 2009).

Significance of retention. Anderson, Whipple, & Jimerson (2013) wrote that

systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining research over the past century

determine that the cumulative evidence does not support the use of grade retention as an

intervention for academic achievement or socio-emotional adjustment. Research also

fails to find significant differences between groups of students retained early or later in

school. Across studies retention at any grade level is associated with later high school


27/57

21

dropout, and other deterious long-term effects. Usually, the test scores of retained

students in the primary grades may increase for a couple of years and then decline below

those of their equally low-achieving but socially promoted peers. The temporary benefits

of retention are deceptive, because student progress is not usually followed by teachers

beyond a few years.

Despite the availability of other methods to assist poorly performing students,

grade retention is often suggested and used to help these students catch up to their better

performing peers. However, most research on the effects of grade retention portrays it as

a practice that offers no lasting benefit to the student, and is considered a damaging

practice. The lack of competing evidence about the causal effects of retention, whether

beneficial or harmful, raises the following questions: What proportion of school-aged

population experiences retention? How do demographic and social background

characteristics of students affect retention? Have these effects changed across time as

school populations and educational practices have changed (Frederick & Hauser, 2008)?

Aldridge and Goldman (2007) explained that the prevalence of grade retention is

not known because school districts rarely keep record of how many students are retained

each year. Estimates can be derived, however, from census data. These estimates show

that the number of grade retained students ranges from six to nine percent each year. For

students in urban school districts, the retention rate has been estimated to be about 50

percent. The cost of retaining U.S. students for at least on year is staggering.

Pros and cons of retention. Jimerson and Renshaw (2012) stated that although a

few students may benefit from grade retention, there is no proven method for predicting

who will and who will not benefit. Students experiencing difficulty in school because


28/57

22

they lack learning opportunities, rather than ability, are often thought to be among those

most likely to benefit from retention. However, few studies have identified certain

factors associated with chances of promising results. Although some educators and

parents believe that grade retention is more effective in early grades than later grades, the

majority of empirical evidence shows that retention is not effective across grade levels.

But given the many negative results associated with retention, and the lack of positive

results, retention is not an empirically supported intervention.

Range et al. (2012) explained that the results of most longitudinal studies find that

retention does not benefit students academically. These studies also explain why

researchers report a higher percentage of retained students eventually drop out of school.

However, other studies have determined that retention benefits students academically.

Most of these studies were conducted in states or districts, where students were held to

competency standards before being promoted. Grade retention in both areas is uncertain,

creating the argument that educational researchers, policy makers, and practitioners

would be better served in studying formative interventions aimed at improving the

outcomes of struggling students. Anderson et al. (2013) wrote that when weighing the

pros and cons of retention, it is important to emphasize to educators and parents that most

research has failed to show the benefits of grade retention over promotion to the next

grade level for any group of students. Instead, we must concentrate on implementing

evidence-based prevention and intervention approaches to promote social and cognitive

competence and to facilitate the academic success of all students.

Long-term effects of retention. Wakefield (2012) stated that a study found that

one-half of retained students do no better their second time in grade, 25 percent actually


29/57

23

do worse. Another study reported that retained students often performed worse the

second time. Research studies, from as early as the 1930s, have reported the negative

effects of retention on student achievement. Retention is significantly associated with

dropping out of school. Retained students are 70 percent more likely to leave school

early, and those retained a second time are almost certain to drop out. Other studies over

the years show that retention not only fails to help, but it often harms students and

increases dropout rates.

Jimerson and Renshaw (2012) explained that retention is predictive of emotional

distress, low self-esteem, poor peer relations, tobacco use, alcohol and other drug abuse,

early sexual activity, suicidal intentions, and violent behaviors during adolescence.

Retained students are 5 to 10 times more likely to drop out of school than students who

have not been retained. People who have experienced grade retention are less likely to

receive a diploma by age 20. They are more likely to be unemployed, live on public

assistance, or be in prison than those who have not been retained.

Risks of retention. Aldridge and Goldman (2007) stated that retention can help

some students and in certain circumstances, but there are serious risks associated with it.

Most studies show that retention is ineffective in promoting positive academic

achievement in the long run. Studies show that at-risk students who were promoted

achieved at the same or higher levels than comparable peers who were retained and spent

two years in a grade. Other studies found that when retained and promoted students of

like ability were compared, the promoted students outperformed the retained students the

next year.


30/57

24

Shaw (2011) explained that some middle school students will struggle and not

have the support necessary from the school or their parents to be successful and will

become at-risk to grade retention or dropping out of school. There are certain

characteristics that determine whether a student is considered at-risk. Their behavior may

be erratic and inconsistent. They may feel a sense of both superiority and inferiority and

are often fearful and anxious in their surroundings. These students can become angry

quickly making adults struggle to understand their intention. Due to this students act

very childish with frequent mood swings.

Murray (2010) wrote that the traditionally at-risk groups most impacted by

retention are the following: low socio-economic levels, male gender, high mobility,

minority and low academic achievement. A large scale demographical study of retained

students, found that the odds of a male student being retained are more than 1.5 times that

of a matched demographics female student. In a similar analysis of retained students, it

was found that low income and minority students are at least 2 to 3 times more likely to

be retained than other students. If retention is impacting at-risks groups at a

disproportionate rate, it is questionable to the rationale for the continuation for the

practice. Jacob and Lefgren (2009) explained that critics argue that retention will harm

those low-achieving students most at risk of failure. They point to a vast research

literature within education documenting the negative impacts of retention. However,

because retention decisions are usually made by the teacher or school principal based on

a host of unobservable student characteristics such as maturity or parental involvement,

all of these studies are plagued be serious selection concerns.


31/57

25

Retention and academic performance. Range, Pijanowski, Holt, & Young

(2012) stated that the political push to use grade retention does not support the majority

research that concludes retained students are harmed academically and socio-emotionally.

The results of most longitudinal studies find that retention is not beneficial to students

academically. Although some studies show that students exhibit short-term benefits,

these gains quickly fade. Researchers found that retained students reading achievement

was worse than a low-performing but promoted peer group during the retention year.

Jimerson, Pletcher, & Kerr (2005) explained that administrators who are

committed to helping all students achieve academic success and reach their full potential

must discard ineffective practices such as grade retention. It is important to engage

student support personnel to develop and implement alternative strategies to retention

because they will work closely with the at-risk students. Systematic procedures to

identify needs at the beginning of each academic year provide the foundation for

effective intervention efforts. The cumulative risk associated with continued

achievement demonstrated the importance of providing targeted to students early to

improve their chances for success.

Murray (2011) said that research shows that retention does not increase student

achievement. The consensus of many studies indicates that the performance of students

is slightly better the next year after retention but with little positive effect after that point.

There is little consistent evidence to support the contention that retaining students

actually improves long-term educational outcomes at all. There is strong evidence that

retained students are at a substantially higher risk of dropping out of school altogether.


32/57

26

Badrane (2012) explained that repeating a grade improves achievement in language and

math throughout middle school respectively by about 8% to 15% of a standard deviation.

Jimerson and Renshaw (2012) stated that grade retention has been considered as a

logical, fairly straightforward approach for students who are achieving below their grade

level or experiencing chronic behavior problems. It is also thought of as a preferable

alternative to social promotion. Research shows that neither grade retention nor social

promotion alone is an effective approach for improving students academic, behavioral,

and social emotional success. Like so much in education, what is most effective is a

targeted approach that addresses students academic, social, and mental health issues and

connects specific evidence-based interventions to each students needs.

Retention and social issues. Hong & Bing Yu (2008) explained that among

several domains of social-emotional outcomes, students self-perceived competence in

their academics and in peer relationships and in their internalizing problem behaviors are

considered to be particularly sensitive to the retention intervention. There are contrasting

theoretical arguments about how the change in peer composition as a result of retention

may affect the retained students self-concept. Range et al. (2012) stated that researchers

found that retention caused serious harm to students self-esteem, and that students

viewed retention as the most significant negative life event they could experience. Other

studies found grade retention negatively impacted retained students attitudes toward

school. Aldridge and Goldman (2007) said that retained students tend to feel more

poorly about their capabilities, and score lower on measures of personal and

psychological adjustment. Clinical interviews with students show that they felt angry or

sad about retention and feared the reaction of family or friends.


33/57

27

Schnurr, Kundert, & Nickerson (2009) stated that grade retention is a common

response to students who are not academically and/or socially ready for the next grade.

Meta-analyses have consistently found that retention does not result in long-term

improvement in academic or social and/or emotional functioning. Grade retention is

associated with continued long-term low academic achievement, increased negative

attitude toward school, increased behavior problems, and overall disengagement from

school. Data imply that retention is not effective and is a costly intervention.

The National Association of School Psychologists (2008) wrote that research

suggests that students who have relatively positive self-concepts; good peer relationships;

social, emotional, and behavioral strengths; and those who have fewer achievement

problems are less likely to have negative retention experiences. Students who struggle in

school due to lack of ability may be helped by retention. Retention is more likely to have

benign or positive impact when students are not just held back, but receive specific

remediation to address skill or behavioral deficits and promote achievement and social

skills. However, such remediation is also likely to benefit students who are socially

promoted.

Jimerson and Renshaw (2012) stated that retention can have additional negative

effects in middle and high school. Students who have already been retained may be

experiencing consequences that hinder their academic and social engagement, such as

poor peer interactions, an aversion to school, behavior issues, and poor self-concept.

They are also more independent, less likely to have close parental supervision over their

schoolwork and social interactions, more easily in a position to skip school, and more

likely to have greater access to negative influences in the community and online. All of


34/57

28

this can contribute to the barriers between the student learning and can increase the

potential for failure.

Retention and behavior issues. Wu, West, & Hughes (2010) explained that

retained students, relative to promoted students benefit from retention in both the short

and longer term with respect to teacher-rated hyperactivity, peer-rated sadness and

withdrawal, and increased teacher-rated behavioral engagement. Three years after

retention, retained students reported higher academic competence than did matched

promoted students. Retained students generally perform less well on measures of self-

regulation. The additional year of maturation affords retained students a chance to catch

up to their younger grade mates in behavioral and emotional adjustments.

Jimerson and Ferguson (2007) said that across the extant scholarship examining

the outcomes correlated with grade retention, both achievement and behavior have been

examined. Often the rationale presented for retention is that repeating a grade will

enhance behavior and/or achievement. It is important to examine both behavior and

achievement. Moreover, the interplay between social skills, behavior, and achievement is

important to acknowledge, particularly as related to school failure. Research shows that

retained students display more aggression during adolescence relative to low-achieving,

promoted students.

Retention and absenteeism. Spencer (2009) stated that a chronological review

of student records from school entry through grade 8, showed high frequencies of

absenteeism and academic performance issues beginning at school entry and persisting

throughout elementary and middle school years. Results suggest that ongoing analysis of

attendance data within a school system could help to identify early patterns of


35/57

29

absenteeism that lead to truancy in middle school grades. The study indicates a need for

socio-emotional support, appropriate referral and evaluation for children who are

struggling in school, and it calls into question the practice of retention and social

promotion as a response to absenteeism and poor school performance among students.

Jimerson and Renshaw (2012) wrote that retained students have a more negative attitude

towards school and higher absenteeism than students who have not been retained.

Alternatives of retention. Allen et al. (2013) stated that early identification for

prevention and intervention is necessary, whenever a student is struggling. Several

school-based supports have been found to be effective is helping students with

educational difficulties. These include various reading programs, summer school and

more direct instruction. Tutoring, well-designed homework activities and after-school

programs have also been shown to be beneficial. Encouraging parents to communicate

regularly with the school and to become involved through attending student study team

(SST) meetings, participating in training programs and exploring behavior management

strategies if appropriate are helpful strategies. It is most important to advocate for

implementation of educational interventions that are supported by research, continue

monitoring the childs achievement trajectory, and then revisit the progress made.

Powell (2011) wrote that there is no question that interventions other than grade

retention are needed to help all students succeed in school. Fresh alternatives and new

ways of thinking about students are needed. It is important to look at viable

interventions. Other interventions could promote success and prevent some of the

negative consequences of grade retention. Such alternative can include greater early


36/57

30

assessment and interventions in early childhood years of schooling and substantive

interventions in early grades.

Jimerson and Renshaw (2012) explained that there is not a clear solution that

effectively addresses the needs of all students who are at risk of being retained.

Administrators are encouraged to work with their school psychologists and other student

and instructional support staff to create a system to identify students who are at risk and

provide appropriate specific interventions and training for teachers and parents. The

most effective alternatives to retention focus on prevention, early intervention, and

intensive targeted interventions. Many schools use response to intervention (RTI) and

positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) models, to facilitate the kind of

problem-solving and progress monitoring approaches needed. School-wide interventions

and classroom-based interventions can easily be integrated into such models.

Range et al. (2012) stated that the most encouraging practice to decrease grade

retention rates is early identification of low-performing students, followed by intense,

formative interventions. Interventions include extending the school day with tutoring,

summer school, supplemental reading programs, flexible scheduling for more reading

instruction, smaller class size, and personalized learning plans. Past studies indicate

educators viewed parental involvement as the most important intervention for struggling

students and recommend using extended family as support. Continuing to explore

practitioners beliefs about grade retention and interventions that might decrease its use is

an important research endeavor.

Jimerson et al. (2005) explained that it is essential to address the needs of students

by providing effective interventions that specifically target deficits and build upon


37/57

31

strengths. Too often, students fall behind in middle level or high school and do not make

satisfactory progress toward graduation. The result is many of these students drop out of

school. Students who were retained in elementary school often display behavior issues

and attendance issues during middle level and high school. It is important to carefully

think about both the academic and the social emotional needs of all retained students and

to establish support plans that promote their educational success.

Further Research

Allen et al. (2009) explained that future research on the effects of grade retention

needs to concentrate on the conditions under which repeating a year is beneficial to

students. It should also focus on the conditions under which social promotion allows

students to catch up to their academically more proficient age peers. Future research

should include longitudinal research that evaluates the provision of instructional supports

before and after grade retention. Social promotion holds considerable promise for

identifying effective educational practices for children who fall below grade level

expectations for achievement.

As students continue through school, those who have been retained are twice as

likely to repeat a grade for a second time as their comparable nonretained peers. Each

incident of student retention dramatically increases the likelihood that the student will

drop out before completing high school. In communities that use grade retention in the

name of accountability while holding on to standardized testing, many students lose more

than they gain from current standards-based reforms. For retained students, the threat of

withholding a diploma rarely stimulates them to engage in school. These students


38/57

32

express feelings of alienation in the classroom climate and school environment (Leckrone

& Griffith, 2006).

The National Association of Social Workers (2006) stated that educators,

administrators, and families are encouraged to examine available research as well as their

beliefs to the practice of retention. Research on grade retention has shown that

promotion with remediation provides more academic benefits than either retention alone,

retention with remediation, or promotion alone. School officials must make progress

beyond options of retention or social promotion to an analysis of education interventions

that promote student learning and success in the school setting. Professional

development opportunities for educators to understand current research and examine

local policies and personal beliefs about retention can promote involvement in the

development of solutions to this problem.

School systems can start by analyzing actual numbers of students being retained

to determine which groups of students and what grade levels are showing retentions in

disproportionate numbers. Analysis of existing school policies and patterns of retentions

can result in preventive changes. School divisions could use triggering mechanisms to

identify students early in the school year who are at risk of failing. A diagnostic process

could ensue to determine whether academic weaknesses, social and behavioral problems,

or a combination of issues are the source of a students failure. Referral and

implementation of proactive forms of intervention would be essential to turning the

failure around (National Association of Social Workers, 2006).


39/57

33

An important issue for further research is the social and emotional ramifications

of being retained. Research has consistently reported the negative social and emotional

effects of grade retention. Grade retention has historically been a stigmatizing experience

for many students such that they would not necessarily improve the emotional outcomes

of being ostracized from ones peer group. No studies have examined these constructs in

the context of large-scale retention as part of a state-wide pupil progression plan (Powell,

2007).

In the future, additional research should be conducted on the impact of grade

retention and remediation before and after retention to make comparisons. The purpose

would be to determine if there should be more alternatives to grade retention, the

effectiveness of remediation, if improvement has been shown, and if students benefited

from being retained. Further research should provide the results of retained students

academic performance in all areas. This information will be important and helpful in the

decision-making process about grade retention policies and procedures.

Most studies showed no positive correlation between grade retention and

improved academics. There were many negative results of grade retention. There have

been results of retained students having social issues, behavior issues, and no significant

improvement in their academics. Remediation was explained as being mandatory for

students who continue to perform below grade level. When the literature about grade

retention seems to indicate that there are just as many, if not more, negative than positive

outcomes, yet retention continues to be practiced in many school settings, it can be

concluded that further study on grade retention is warranted.


40/57

34

Research Questions

1. What is the effect of grade retention and remediation on at risk middle school

students reading achievement the following year?

2. What is the effect of grade retention and remediation on at risk middle school

students math achievement the following year?

3. How does retention/remediation affect middle school students

social/emotional concerns?

4. How does retention/remediation affect middle school students behavior?

5. How does retention/remediation affect middle school students attendance?


41/57

35

Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

This study will be conducted to examine the impact of grade retention on at risk

middle school students. Specifically, retained students FCAT scores and data indicating

social/emotional concerns, behavior issues, and attendance before and after grade

retention will collected in order to answer the research questions for the proposed study.

Participants

The target population in this study will be retained at-risk middle school grade

students at an Alternative Learning Center (ALC) middle school. In the 2010-2011

school year, the following number of students took the FCAT at ALC: 47 students in

grade 6, 48 students in grade 7, and 80 students in grade 8. In the 2011-2012 school

year, the following number of students took the FCAT at ALC middle school: 24

students in grade 6, 38 students in grade 7, and 65 students in grade 8. In the 2011-

2012 school year the School District of Lee County had the following number of non-

promotions: 2 in grade 6, 3 in grade 7, and 160 in grade 8. A total of 169 middle

school students were retained. This will be the target population because of retention

and promotion based on testing requirements that students have not met. All possible

variables such as age, gender, and ethnicity of retained students in grades 6, 7, and 8

will be included. The demographics of ALC middle school are the following: 124

boys, 42 girls, 45.1% African American, 26.7% Hispanic, and 5.8% other ethnicity.

The total minority at ALC middle school is 77.7%. The researcher will attempt to

recruit all retained students and students who scored below standards on the FCAT,

based on their FCAT scores and remediation services at ALC middle school.


42/57

36

Instruments

Retained students FCAT scores before and after grade retention will be used to

collect data for comparison pre and post retention/remediation. The FCAT is a criterion-

referenced test that measures student achievement of the Next Generation Sunshine State

Standards in reading and mathematics. Students in grades 6, 7, and 8 must score a Level

3 or above in reading and mathematics assessments for their performance to be

considered satisfactory. Achievement Levels, based on both scale scores and

developmental scale scores, range from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). If students score below

Level 3 they are not performing on grade level. These students may be retained and will

be given remediation. Students who score a Level 1 or 2 on the FCAT reading and or

mathematics will be placed in an intensive reading and an intensive mathematics class as

part of the remediation process.

Miami-Dade County Public Schools (2013) explained that the FCAT was

designed to measure achievement of the Sunshine State Standards. The skills and

competencies outlined in the Standards were embedded in the material of the students

core classes. Students receive instruction on the content of the Next Generation Sunshine

State Standards, and the FCAT measures achievement of these educational standards.

The best understanding of students academic achievement comes from other sources as

well as the FCAT collected over time.

The Florida Department of Education (2013) stated that the four kinds of

reliability coefficients that can be used in relation to the FCAT are: internal consistency,

test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, and reliability of classifications. The types of

validity evidence are usually grouped into the following three categories: content-related


43/57

37

evidence, criterion-related evidence, and construct-related evidence. For any of the four

types of reliability, the coefficient is expressed as a number from zero to one (0.0-1.00).

A value of zero shows a lack of reliability that results in inconsistent test scores from one

test administration to the next, and a value of one shows perfect consistency. Internal

consistence reliabilities for FCAT are reported using Cronbachs Alpha and Item

Response Theory (IRT) marginal reliabilities. Cronbachs Alpha coefficients reported

for the FCAT-Sunshine State Standards tests show the following: Reading (0.88-0.92),

and Mathematics (0.88-0.93). The IRT marginal reliabilities reported for the FCAT-

Sunshine State Standards tests show the following: Reading (0.88-0.91), and

Mathematics (0.88-0.94). This data confirms that the FCAT is a highly reliable test for

assessing the educational achievement of Florida students.

The Florida Department of Education (2013) wrote that because the FCAT

assesses the content of the Sunshine State Standards and is created using credible and

trustworthy methods, the content validity of the test is substantiated. To ensure high

content validity of the FCAT, the Department of education has implemented many steps

for all of the items included on the FCAT. Concurrent validity is more significant for the

FCAT than predictive validity and can be examined by the correlation of scores on the

criterion-referenced portion with scores on the norm-referenced portion. Both parts of

the FCAT are administered at approximately the same time. Correlations between the

FCAT and the norm-referenced tests show the following: Reading (0.78-0.85), and

Mathematics (0.76-0.85). This data confirms that the FCAT demonstrates concurrent

validity with the norm-referenced portion. The FCAT technical reports present detailed

information regarding construct-related evidence of validity and show that both FCAT-


44/57

38

Sunshine State Standards reading and mathematics tests have substantial convergent

validity. This information explains that the FCAT measures the skills intended to be

measured. The evidence of reliability and validity supports the claim that the FCAT is

technically sound and meets or exceeds the professional standards for standardized

achievement tests.

The American Library Association (2013) explained that the FCAT evaluates

reading and mathematics. The reading section uses several written materials to assess

reading comprehension. There are 6-8 reading passages with sets of 6-11 questions based

on each passage. There are two types of passages, they are informational and literary.

The mathematics section addresses: number sense, concepts, operations, measurement,

geometry and spatial sense, algebraic thinking, and data analysis and probability. It

contains multiple choice questions for grades 3-10, gridded-response questions for grades

5-10, and short and extended response performance tasks in grades 5, 8, and 10.

To examine social competence information will be gathered regarding retained

students emotional issues, such as depression, isolation, disengagement, and if they have

needed counseling. The number of discipline referrals and the consequences for the

behavior issues of retained students will be collected, such as the number of internal

school suspensions (ISS) and out of school suspensions (OSS). The number of days

retained students have been in attendance at school will be calculated. All of these data

will be gathered and compared before and after grade retention.

Remediation

The Florida Department of Education (2013) explained that any student who

shows a substantial deficiency in reading, based upon locally determined or statewide


45/57

39

assessments, must be given intensive reading instruction immediately following the

identification of the reading deficiency. Students reading proficiency must be reassessed

by locally determined assessments. Students must continue to be provided with intensive

reading instruction until the reading deficiency is remedied. The Florida Department of

Education (2007) stated that for each year that a student scores at Level 1 on FCAT

mathematics, the student must complete an intensive mathematics course the next year,

which may be integrated into the students required mathematics course.

Just Read, Florida! Educators (2008) stated that middle school students who score

a Level 1 or Level 2 on FCAT Reading and have intervention needs on the areas of

decoding and/or text reading efficiency must receive extended time for reading

intervention. This extended time may consist of students reading on a regular basis

before and after school with teacher support. Students who are two or more years below

grade level may have a double block of reading to accelerate foundational reading skills.

Classroom infrastructure must be sufficient to implement the intervention course. The

intervention course should include the following instructions daily:

1. Whole group explicit instruction;

2. Small group differentiated instruction;

3. Independent reading practice, utilizing classroom library materials, monitored

by the teacher;

4. Integration of Next Generation Sunshine State Standards benchmarks specific

to the subject area of blocked with the intensive reading course;

5. A focus on informational text at a ratio matching FCAT; and


46/57


47/57

41

Procedures

Design. The one-group pretest-posttest design will be used for this study.

Edmonds and Kennedy (2010) stated that the one-group pretest-posttest is where one group

of participants is pretested on the dependent variable and then posttested after the treatment

has been administered. The rationale for using the one-group pretest-posttest design is that

it includes a pretest that indicates how the participants did before the administration of the

treatment condition. In this design, the effect is taken to be the difference between the

pretest and the posttest scores. FCAT scores will be collected and analyzed to compare

scores before and after grade retention. Social/emotional concerns will be analyzed by the

comparison of the number of counseling services that retained students received before and

after retention. The same approach will be used to gather and analyze data regarding

behavior issues, to determine the number of incidents of discipline before and after grade

retention. Data for the attendance and absences of retained students will be collected and

analyzed pre and post-retention/remediation as well.

Data analysis. The independent variable (IV) is student retention/remediation.

The dependent variables (DV) are reading and math achievement, social/emotional

concerns, behavioral issues, and attendance. For research questions 1 and 2, the

statistical test that will be used to compare each variable before and after grade retention

will be a one-sample ttest. Green and Salkind (2008) explained that the one-sample ttest

evaluates whether the mean on a test is significantly different from a constant, which is

called a test value. This test will be used in this study to compare the state mean

developmental scale and the sample. Two one sample t tests will be conducted, one for

the academic year prior to retention, and one for the academic year immediately


48/57

42

following retention. For research questions 3, 4, and 5, dependent t tests will be

conducted, comparing the dependent variables pre to post retention. Finally, frequency

data will also be calculated.

Limitations

Powell (2007) stated that a major concern is the possibility that FCAT scores may

not be a true representation of a students actual skills. Other methods of evaluating

students skills may need to be explored. This study will be restricted by only using

FCAT scores and not grades, as perhaps students grades may indicate improvement as a

result of retention/remediation, while FCAT scores may not. A longitudinal design in

which students test scores are examined across time could also strengthen the study by

allowing conclusions to be drawn about the long-term outcomes of early grade retention

at the middle school level.

Limitations for the external validity of this study will be the participants and the

setting. The participants for this study will be a small sample of retained students. The

setting will be restricted to representing a specific population of students. The sample

would be larger if retained students were selected from the entire school district.

Additional participants would provide more data and expanded results. If the setting

included more schools there would be other research to consider and more diverse

demographics. Sample characteristics will be a threat to the external validity of this

study. Edmonds and Kennedy (2010) explained that sample characteristics are the extent

to which the sample represents the population from which it is drawn.

Possible threats to the internal validity of this study will be maturation, testing,

and instrumentation. Edmonds and Kennedy (2010) stated that maturation is the natural


49/57

43

process of changing, growing, and learning over time. Testing is the effects of practice

familiarity in taking the same test more than once. For example the participant who takes

the same math achievement test twice in the pre- and posttest measures may improve

performance simply because of the familiarity with the test. Instrumentation is the

change in a measuring instrument over time, as some instruments are revised. This will

affect this study because the FCAT goes through revisions. FCAT scoring and content

material may change over time.


50/57

44

Chapter 4: Results

results presented in sequence and relative to each research question

only the results are presented without a rationale or discussion

includes relevant tables and figures

appropriate use of statistical or qualitative language to present data


51/57

45

Chapter 5: Discussion

introductory paragraphs provide overview of the study

results are elaborated and interpreted in sequence and relative to each research

question

conclusions and summaries regarding the findings are offered

findings are linked to relevant research

implications of findings are discussed

limitations are indicated

recommendations for future research are offered


52/57

46

References

Ahrens, B. C. (2005). Finding a new way: Reinventing a sixth-grade reading program.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(8), 642-653.

Aldridge, J., & Goldman, R. (2007). Current issues and trends in education: grade

retention. Pearson.

Allen, C. S., Chen, Q., Willson, V. L., & Hughes, J. N. (2009). Quality of research design

moderates effects of grade retention on achievement: A meta-analytic, multilevel

analysis.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 480-499.

Allensworth, E. M. (2005). Dropout rates after high-stakes testing in elementary school:

A study of the contradictory effects of Chicagos efforts to end social promotion.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(4), 341-365.

American Library Association. (2013). The Florida comprehensive assessment test

(FCAT). Retrieved from http://mathandreadinghelp.org.

Anderson, G. E., Whipple, A. D., & Jimerson, S. R. (2013). Grade retention:

Achievement and mental health outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.cdl.org.

Badrane, M. (2012). The treatment effect of grade repetitions. Retrieved from

http://ssrn.com

Bali, V. A., Anagnostopoulos, D., & Roberts, R. (2005). Toward a political explanation

of grade retention.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 133-154.

Bowman, L. J. (2005). Grade retention: Is it a help or hindrance to student academic

success?Preventing School Failure, 4

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	yolonda-white
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

White, Y - FSE_Dissertation_Template_2013 (1)

Documents