Social promotion or retention? two wrongs still don't make a right.

Enlightened retention policies can lead to working smarter, providing more powerful classroom instruction and better intervention measures, and disallowing failure as an option.

"Dear God: I got left back. Thanks a lot. -- Raymond" (Children's Letters to God, 1966)

Unlike any other profession, education rides an ideological pendulum with uncanny regularity. From bridge builders to pediatricians to automobile designers, better practices and products regularly replace old ones. Yet education policymakers sometimes revert to the past for their future. They think nothing of readopting materials, practices or policies from the past and calling them "innovations." Indeed, it is now not unusual to find "new" books in classrooms that were originally used in the '70s, language policies for immigrant students that would make Henry Ford rejoice, a revival of norm-referenced tests and bell curves born of social Darwinism and eugenics from the turn of the century, not to mention a resurrection of retention as a cure for social promotion and other academic maladies.

It is not that we don't make research-based advances -- most recently in the area of helping high-poverty schools become high-performing. It is just that our affinity for the occasional lapse backwards appears so alive and so well.

Oddly, between the mid-'80s and the mid-'90s, research appeared to all but put to rest retention as a viable alternative to underperformance. In 1993, the California Department of Education even provided a comprehensive research summary on the topic and offered alternatives with its publication, "Beyond Retention: A Study of Retention Rates, Practices, and Successful Alternatives in California." Notwithstanding, there is now a recent spate of legislation that has revived retention as a requirement for students not meeting standards.

Who is most likely to be retained? Students for whom schools are traditionally least successful: minorities, English Language Learners, students with special needs and students living in poverty. And the percentage of such students is steadily creeping up by an average of 1 percent to 3 percent per year.

Richard Rodriguez announced recently on The PBS News Hour that all ethnic groups in California now number less than 50 percent, including whites. That makes us like Hawaii, the nation's first majority-minority state. It also means that traditional approaches to education will result in decreasing educational outcomes if we continue to conduct business as usual, making differences that do not make a difference.

In fact, "poor and minority students only fail because of the way we run schools now," observes Benjamin Bloom. Do the same things, get the same results. Do dramatically different things, get dramatically different results.

Whether you agree with this characterization or not, the task before us is to ensure that all students meet gradelevel standards in preparation for a role in the Information Age, a much more cognitively-demanding role than baby boomers faced as students.

But how do we end social promotion, heed the negative research on retentions and still comply with new laws in ways that will pay off for students? There are answers to this question if we can learn from our mistakes. It means working smarter and more strategically, providing more powerful classroom instruction as well as better prevention and intervention measures, and implementing a more enlightened version of retention, should it come to that.

The case against social promotion

The hue and cry has gone up. End social promotion! From former President Clinton's most recent State of the Union addresses on down -- through legislatures, state education agencies and local administrations -- the current consensus opposes passing kids on in payment for seat time and good behavior.

And it makes sense. We are trying to learn to live and work by a new performance-based ethic. We have state content standards, state tests and benchmarks, data-driven decision-making and rewards and sanctions for demonstrated performance. Delaine Eastin has challenged the bell curve, calling for 90 percent of the state's students to meet grade-level standards by 2006. Indeed, the High School Exit Exam will soon replace "mercy D's." Clearly, social promotion is inconsistent with this scene.

Besides, it just goes against the grain of our pragmatic, up-by-the-boot-straps culture where the Puritan work ethic still reigns and people still frown on getting something for nothing. How it has lasted this long is anyone's guess. In fact, the advent of standards-based education and the subsequent demise of social promotion might be just what the doctor ordered to support our elusive pursuit of equitable educational opportunities as well as outcomes.

At any rate, with the passage of AB 1626, AB 1639, SB 1370 and SB 1683, the Legislature intended to end social promotion for good, replacing it with a variety of measures including prevention, intervention and retention. To its credit, the Legislature also linked these measures with a renewed call for educators to spare nothing in the pursuit of every child's success: "With the development of rigorous academic standards in each discipline for each grade level, it is the expectation of the Legislature and the governor that all public school educators will do all that is necessary so that each pupil meets high academic standards" (AB 1626, Section 1, b).

The case against traditional retentions

Typical of western thought is the habit of generating either/or choices. The issue of social promotion or retention is a perfect example. Alfred Korzybski, in "Science and Sanity" (1933), pointed out that either/or options contribute to maladjustments or "unsanity" by making us blind to all the possibilities both outside as well as in between the two options. Although it appears "logical" to choose retention as the alternative to social promotion, perching ourselves on the horns of an either/or dilemma -- where both horns have a history of doing damage -- is no solution.

Unfortunately, as pressure for improved student performance has grown, the number of retentions and the number of laws calling for them has also grown. Although formal data are scarce, one report says, "Research suggests that retention is on the rise ... from 1980 to 1992 the national percentage of retained students increased from approximately 20 percent to nearly 32 percent" (Owings and Magliaro, 1998).

And this has occurred in the face of a sizeable literature on the negative effects of traditional retentions:

* Approximately 60 percent of students retained once drop out of school by grade 12.

* An average of 30 percent of students retained once drop out by grade nine.

* Students retained twice have a 90 percent chance of dropping out before graduating.

Although some studies show modest academic gains for students retained in kindergarten or grade one, the gains of retained students seem to wash out by grades two and three. In fact, the only major difference between students who were retained vs. like students who were socially promoted is the emotional stigma carried by the former for the rest of their lives (California Department of Education, 1998).

As one research summary put it, "Few practices in education have such overwhelming negative research findings arrayed against them" (ACSA, 1998).

Clearly, traditional, year-long retention is not the solution to problems of social promotion or educational inequity. Although the admonition of the medical profession to "at least do no harm" could easily be applied here, maintaining the status quo of social promotion is also unacceptable.

An alternative: strategic schooling

As an antidote to traditional views of social promotion and retention, consider the following three constructs. They form the basis of what might be called "strategic schooling." They are drawn from the principles of Psycho-Cybernetics (M. Maltz, 1960) and the notion that the brain and other complex systems, like schools, are "goal-seeking devices." These systems can only function optimally when the following elements are in place and fully functional.

Targets

The first element is targets: both students and content. By law, there are three types of students to be targeted in any district retention policy: struggling, at risk of retention and retained. The implication is that there should be assessments and remedies in place to accelerate the learning of each student -- by name -- in each group.

The content of the remedy should be related specifically to standards that a student has not yet mastered. Thus, it would make no sense -- in a standards-based system -- to retain a kid for a whole year in the traditional way unless the student had mastered none of the previous grade-level standards.

With regard to content targets, however, there is an elephant in the living room that few are talking about: there are almost twice as many standards as we have time for in K-12. Recently, it has been estimated that it would take approximately 22 years to teach all the standards that we are asking K-12 students to master (Marzano and Kendall, 1998). This means that districts, schools and educators must prioritize and select the minimum, yet most important, standards necessary to meet grade-level requirements.

Douglas Reeves of the Center for Performance Assessment (testdoctor.com), speaking recently in Northern California, suggested we choose approximately a dozen "power standards" per subject per grade level that are (a) enduring ideas; (b) related to tables, charts and graphs; and (c) involve writing.

However we do it, the sheer quantity of standards to be taught will have to be addressed in our retention policies.

Feedback

The second key element in "strategic schooling" is feedback. A system of daily, weekly and/or monthly assessments -- used more frequently with the most struggling students -- is crucial for acceleration. And the results need to be shared -- not just among educators, but with the struggling students and their parents. There is just something about knowing what you are shooting at and how close you are coming to hitting it that generates motivation, ownership and investment of energy. Let students and parents in on the enterprise, and they will begin to pull their own weight.

Unfortunately, a lack of alignment between standards and assessments used to make retention decisions should give anyone pause before making such an important decision.

Know-how

The third key element is know-how: both organizational and classroom. Classroom know-how would include the best -- not just good -- research-based strategies, activities and materials aligned with standards.

Because it is unrealistic for the teacher to be the only remedy, however, the school must also develop an arsenal of organizational interventions to support its neediest students and their teachers. This means students are provided more intensity, more time and more focus on targeted content through programs during school, before and after school, during intercession, on Saturdays and in the summer. Fortunately, the new retention laws provide money for such interventions.

In addition, there need to be structured opportunities for on-target meetings with staff, students, parents and Student Study Teams. Teachers need the chance to meet regularly in grade-level or subject-area groups to discuss best practices, content and kids. And students need to be referred for health and social services when necessary to remove obstacles impeding their learning.

The goals of these classroom and organizational features are prevention -- where possible and as soon as possible -- as well as acceleration, i.e., two to three year's progress in a year. Fortunately, both are possible for virtually every child if the three elements of strategic schooling outlined above are in place.

The degree to which any of these three elements -- targets, feedback and know-how -- remain undeveloped or dysfunctional is the degree to which the system will continue to fail some students and teachers. What grade would you give your school in each of these three areas? What needs to be tackled right now that will accelerate learning in your most struggling students? In what ways can you work smarter ... spending calories and dollars where they are needed most?

Fortunately, most districts are making good faith efforts to develop and implement more powerful and enlightened promotion and retention policies. Elk Grove Unified School District, for example, last year developed a list of fewer than 10 standards per subject area per grade level in language arts and math that elementary students had to master in order to be promoted. The district's assessment and record-keeping systems make it possible to target both students and standards-based content for maximum effect.

Similarly, Ontario-Montclair has set up an exemplary system. Although 12,000 students were identified as at risk of retention last year, only 210 were retained. Of 53 eighth-graders retained in June, 42 were promoted after successfully completing summer school.

And although 327 of their 13,000 students were retained this year, Billie Holt of Fullerton Elementary School District is confident that retentions will decrease as their new early-identification and intervention measures become fully operational.

Implications and practical considerations

The following considerations are designed to work within the law but to mitigate the negative effects of traditional, year-long retentions:

1. Treat the curriculum as a continuous progress ladder of standards with a minimum number of rungs to be climbed each year. Students not meeting promotion standards only focus on missed rungs and do not return to re-climb last year's entire ladder again.

2. Consider social and emotional -- not just academic -- aspects of a promotion or retention decision. Is it wise to retain an older sibling who will then be in the same grade as a younger one? Should we promote one twin and hold the other one back? What effect will retention have on a student's connection to school and his/her peer group? Are parents for or against the decision and why?

3. Make all retention decisions on a case-by-case basis. By law, teachers may overturn a retention decision by the school flit is not in the best interest of the student.

4. Focus interventions on only those high-priority skills and concepts required for promotion and move on just as soon as data indicate they have been learned.

5. To mitigate the negative effects of retention, place retained elementary students in combination or ungraded classes with promoted classmates so that they can keep up with the next grade while making up last year's standards. Then, promote them -- without changing classrooms -- at any point in the year they have met requirements for promotion.

6. In secondary schools, allow more mixed-grade classes across the curriculum.

7. If they are working substantially in their home languages, hold English Language Learners to the same standards -- taught and assessed principally through their home languages -- and the same timeline as English speakers.

8. If they are working substantially in English, hold ELL's to the same standards as English speakers, but not to the same timeline. For example, ELL students working in English might not be considered for retention until they have:

* achieved a specified level of English language proficiency within a specified period of time (e.g., high intermediate fluency or fluent within three to five years); or

* attended school in the U.S. for a specified period of time (e.g., five to seven years); or

* both.

Postscript

Today's emphasis on pupil promotion and retention can result in abuse or enlightenment. We can increase the pressure on struggling students and their parents in ways that smack of blaming the victim. And we can reduce instruction to a sterile, test-prep, skills-based approach for students most in need of help. Such an approach would not only take the joy out of teaching and learning, but also preempt opportunities to apply skills and concepts in ways that would help students own them forever.

But new promotion and retention policies can also lead to redoubled efforts to work smarter, more strategically, more personally and in greater collaboration with colleagues, students and parents to prevent any child from failing. This will require doing whatever it takes and disallowing failure as an option!

There is a Zen saying: "Knowledge is learning something every day. Wisdom is letting go of something every day." Educators cannot continue to do more on top of more. We must find ways to spend our energies and resources more effectively and strategically on targets, feedback and know-how.

The good news is there is more evidence than ever that Benjamin Bloom was right -- that poverty and minority status only seem like causes of failure because of the way we do business today. With studies such as Doug Reeves' (2000) on schools with 90 percent minority enrollments, 90 percent poverty and 90 percent meeting standards, we have a fighting chance of reaching every child.

Why not use retention policies to remake our schools? Indeed, an enlightened policy could leverage an entire district, ensuring an optimal, standardsbased educational experience in every subject, in every grade level, for every child ... and that would definitely not be business as usual!

References

ACSA. (1998). Research in Grade: Research and Practice. Information for School Leaders, Educational Research Service.

California Department of Education. (November 1998). Pupil Promotion and Retention Information Packet. Sacramento, CA.

Children's Letters to God. (1966) Compiled by E. Marshall & S. Hample. Simon & Shuster, NY.

Marzano, R.J. and Kendall, J.S. (1998). Awash in a Sea of Standards. Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc.

Owings, W.A. and Magliaro, S. (September 1998). "Grade Retention: A History of Failure." Educational Leadership. ASCD: Alexandria, VA.

Reeves, Doug. (2000). Accountability in Action, 2000, Chapter 19. Center for Performance Assessment. Denver, CO.

Dennis R. Parker is a former administrator with the California Department of Education in charge of Pupil Promotion and Retention. He is now on the faculty of the School Management Program at UCLA. He provides professional development in best practices and coaches low-performing elementary and secondary schools throughout the state. He can be reached at [e-mail].