Narrative of the Problem

Mrs. Soto teaches first grade in a large elementary school in an urban school district in southern California. She notices that many students are being retained in her school for low reading achievement. The district’s thinking is that the students need another year to catch up to their peers or else they will be forever behind. An emphasis on high expectations for all students is good. However, when that emphasis ignores individual students’ learning paths, students will suffer.

The administration and the district are judging reading level using a score on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA). The DRA ranges from level A to 44 (kindergarten through 5^th grade). To successfully pass a level, students must read a story at that level with 90-100% accuracy and must be able to retell the story. The district has created benchmarks using DRA levels for the beginning, middle and end of the school year at each grade-level. First graders who are retained are put into designated first grade classes which are called "accelerated" classes. Half of the students which make up the class are retained first graders while the other half are new incoming first graders. There are two teachers in each classroom for half of the day. Special training is provided for teachers in "accelerated" classrooms to enhance their literacy instruction and increase academic achievement in reading.

Mrs. Soto is a dedicated teacher who cares about her students’ academic achievement and reading success. In November, according to the district’s requirements, she filled out learning contracts for the eight students in her classroom who were reading below grade level at that point. As Mrs. Soto filled out the contracts, she wondered what the real purpose was behind Learning Contracts. She decided that they could be used to inform parents and administrators about students who were falling behind the district’s benchmarks. The contracts could also encourage teachers to think about what types of extra support they would offer the student in the classroom. However, Mrs. Soto wondered who had decided what reading level the students should attain at various points in the year and whether those benchmarks had been designed to set expectations for students or to identify at-risk students. Mrs. Soto informed the parents about their child’s current progress and gave suggestions for things to do at home to help their children make progress towards the district reading goals. In the classroom, Mrs. Soto made a conscious effort to engage the students who had learning contracts in higher level thinking as well as teaching them the reading strategies they needed to become better readers.

At the end of the year, Mrs. Soto was asked to decide whether her eight students should be retained or promoted based on their DRA scores at the end of the year. The form that she had to fill out required only the students’ DRA scores. There was no place on the form to address what reading behaviors and strategies the student had mastered or their achievement in other academic areas so she just wrote the DRA score. Four of Mrs. Soto’s students had reached grade level while four remained below grade level. The students who remained below grade level had all made some progress in reading levels as well as in their use of reading strategies so Mrs. Soto decided that they should be promoted.

When Mrs. Soto went to the meeting to form the second grade classes for the next year, she was shocked to learn that other first grade teachers were following the districts’ guidelines and attempting to hold back their students from passing on to the second grade because their DRA score fell below the district’s benchmark for the end of first grade, level 16. Seven out of the ten first-grade teachers present at the meeting had children on their class list that they wanted to retain. One teacher had four students. How was it possible? All of the teachers mentioned their concern that the students had not reached DRA level 16. None of the teachers discussed the students reading behaviors or whether they had made progress over time. They also did not mention whether the student seemed to have trouble across subjects in school or whether they had trouble only with reading. This sparked an entire conversation among the first grade teachers about retention and whether it was good for the students. Mrs. Soto voiced her opinion and said that she did not believe retention was the best solution because she felt that recycling the students through the same curriculum was not appropriate. When one teacher agreed with Mrs. Soto that retention was not the best possible solution for students, another first grade teacher and the principal reminded them of the allotted four Enhanced First grade classes.

Mrs. Soto was beginning to get the feeling that retention was the easiest solution for them to recommend, and that other possible solutions were being ignored for some reason. Mrs. Soto had seen that her students had made progress over the year and did not want to hold them back from continuing onto second grade. She found herself wondering once again why this particular reading level was chosen, and why the Learning Contract was only concerned with the reading score and not other academic strengths of the student. Last year, the school had been allotted two Enhanced first grade classes because of the numbers of first graders being retained. This year, however, there were four allotted Enhanced First grade classes, meaning that there were at least 10 - 40 prospective retained first graders. Mrs. Soto also found the district’s creation of the Junior First classes and the creation a new teacher/resource position to teach in those special classes disturbing. The underlying message seemed to be that they were planning on a large number of students to not make their DRA benchmark. Therefore, they were designating special classes at each school to deal with the "problem" of poor readers. Why were teachers being encouraged to use retention as a solution to low achievement? Why were teachers not using the DRA as an informing on-going assessment? Why were they reducing the DRA assessment to a score and using that score as a basis for retention?

Analysis of the Problem

Problems with Intersubjectivity

Mrs. Soto is a reflective teacher who respects students’ individual progress. Her goal for the year is to find out what each student knows and take them as far as she can over the course of the year. But Mrs. Soto is having difficulty establishing intersubjectivity with the district’s definition of grade-level reading as a basis for retention. The district is sending a mixed message about its beliefs about learning based on the fact that it is trying to balance the politics of education with the research on good teaching. Although the district provides teachers with training that focuses on increasing the achievement of all students at their own pace in a Reader’s Workshop model, it also has a heavy focus on getting students to the benchmarks that the district has set and those students’ achievement on standardized tests. Mrs. Soto believes in setting high expectations for students, but she is hesitant to define a students’ progress based on the results of one reading assessment and in terms of a number (the level) instead of the reading behaviors and strategies that the students are able to employ independently.

Link between Labeling a Student and Their Instruction

Using a learning contract is a positive tool because it alerts the parents that the child needs extra help in reading and allows the teacher to communicate his/her plan for helping the child progress over the year. However, Mrs. Soto feels that filling out a learning contract may also affect how some teachers view the student and the kind of instruction the student receives in the classroom, which then affects the child’s performance. The learning contract then becomes part of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If teachers start to view the child as a "low-achiever" and incapable of making sufficient progress, then the child will know that he/she has been labeled in this manner and may not feel that he/she is a valuable member of the classroom. Teachers may give the student rote assignments that do not require higher level thinking in an effort to help the child learn the basic skills that they need to catch up. That instruction may in fact increase the gap between that child’s performance and those of other students in the classroom who are given opportunities for higher level thinking.

The Assessment - Tracking vs. Guiding Instruction

The message teachers are receiving from their school district is to increase literacy achievement at all costs. Since the literacy achievement is defined by students’ results on the DRA and state-wide SAT9 tests, teachers may feel pressured to get students to a certain level rather than having them make progress that furthers their learning. The DRA is a published assessment tool designed to help teachers see where their students are and think about what kind of instruction will help the students’ progress. The DRA was designed as a performance assessment tool, including questions for students about predictions, comprehension, reading behaviors and fluency. Teachers are expected to monitor the students’ progress on a continuum and set goals for the student as well as how the teacher will help the student meet the goals. However, teachers are using the DRA as a "test" by focusing on the reading level score. Mitchell (1992) agrees that "assessment drives instruction", causing teaching to take a particular direction on the basis of the instruction. Mitchell states: "…if the assessments are models of what students should know and be able to do, then they provide a lever for lifting the system to a new plane of achievement" (p.2). Essentially, misusing an assessment tool can steer teaching and learning in the wrong direction.

The DRA, as an assessment, is one way that students can show what they know about reading, but the decision to retain a student should not be based solely on the results of that assessment. The district has chosen to set benchmarks for each grade level as a way to see how many students are at or below grade-level which may cause teachers to misinterpret how the assessment should be used. The district’s decision to retain students based on the results of this assessment makes the assessment a sorting tool rather than a tool for good instruction. Creating junior first classes actually is a form of tracking students at a very early age based on the belief that certain students are unable to keep pace with their peers and therefore need to be taught separately. Although reading is an important part of school, retaining solely on the basis of students’ reading achievement ignores the students’ capabilities in other subjects and is not based on sound educational research.

Retention affects students’ self-concept

Students that are retained may suffer emotional damage that affects their school achievement. Holmes (1989) found that children who are retained scored lower on a measure of self-concept and attitude toward school than children who were promoted. The academic consequences of Holmes’ study can be seen in Skinner, Wellborn, and Connell’s (1990) findings. Skinner, Wellborn, and Connell (1990) concluded that elementary students’ perceived control of their learning and academic achievement influenced their academic performance (grades and test scores) and their motivation in school. Since retention decreases the students’ perceived control over their performance, their academic achievement and motivation in school will suffer. The student may feel like they are doing their best and yet they are judged to be failing by their teacher and the school system. Therefore, the student may decide not to try anymore. In a study of 74 retained students in third through sixth grade, Pierson and Connell (1992) did in fact find that when compared to a randomly selected group of nonretained peers, "Retained students report less adaptive strategies for achieving success and failure, lower perceived capacities to be smart in school and produce effort and more negative control beliefs ("I can’t seem to do well in school")..."

Other examples of students’ reactions to retention indicate that it is an emotionally traumatic event. Yamamoto’s (1980) assessed students’ feelings about stressful events. He asked children to rate a list of 35 events in terms of how devastating the event would be to them. Of the list of 35 events, being retained was seen as the third worst thing that could happen. Interesting to note, "losing a parent" was rated the most devastating and "going blind" was the second. Another example of how retention affects students’ self-concept is Byrnes (1989) conducted interviews with retained students to find out their reactions to being retained. When asked about how they felt about having to repeat a grade, 84% of the responses centered on sad, bad and upset and 47% of the retained students interviewed reported having been punished by their parents for failing first grade. Many students also reported being teased.

Another factor to consider is that retention is like tracking because it sorts and separates students. Students’ self-concept about their intelligence often leads to their staying in the lower tracked classes and even so far as to drop out. In Yonezawa, Wells and Serna (2002), students from six racially mixed high schools were allowed the freedom to choose their track placement. Yonezawa, Wells and Serna found that the students’ tracked aspirations prevented the schools’ efforts to detract through choice because, "Track structures and the identities that they foster within schools help to shape the students’ aspirations and influence how students use choice-based placement policies" (p. 50). The students felt that they were not smart enough to handle higher track classes. In one example from the research, students admitted they did not sign up for honors courses because they didn’t feel confident enough to handle the material covered in the class.

In addition to affecting students’ placement in school, retention can influence whether or not students finish high school. Grissom and Shepard (1989) conducted a study on African-American male students in Austin, Texas. They found that students who had low academic achievement, but had not been retained had a 45% dropout rate whereas students with the same level of achievement that had been retained had a 75% dropout rate. Barro and Kolstad (1987) conducted a survey of high school sophomores. Students who said that they had repeated one grade were twice as likely to drop out than those that had not repeated a grade.

Retention Ignores Students’ Individual Learning Paths

Holmes (1989) reviewed nine studies, in a meta-analysis of retention, which showed children benefited from repeating a grade. Holmes found several factors in common in these studies: 1) the studies were conducted with a middle-class population, 2) the studies were conducted in suburban, predominately white communities, and 3) the students retained had close to average scores on standardized tests. Most interesting was that in these positive studies; detailed education plans (similar to IEPs) were developed to address specific areas of need for the retained students. Special care was taken to prevent the students from repeating the same exact curriculum and having the same classroom experience. For example, retained students were placed in classrooms with a low teacher-student ratio and some were mainstreamed for part of the school day in classes with students of their own age. Unfortunately, in many cases, retention is seen as the sole solution and students merely repeat the same material with no added support.

Every person is unique and every child has an individual style and pace of learning new material. For example, Vygotsky (1978) makes a distinction between the chronological age and the mental age of two children. Their zones of proximal development are different resulting in different developmental cycles because learners bring their own beliefs, experience and knowledge to a new learning experience. Constructivist theory acknowledges the importance of identifying the students’ prior knowledge and using that knowledge as a point of reference. Effective instruction pushes each student into his or her zone of proximal development. Collaboration encourages students to articulate and revise their personal theories through semiotic mediation.

An application of the constructivist theory is the Collaborative Apprenticeship Model (CAL). The first learning principle of CAL is to use the learner’s background knowledge as a frame of reference from which to generate hypotheses. Bayer (1990) highlights the importance of language use and social interaction in acquisition of new knowledge: "Helping students build on their knowledge involves providing opportunities for them to use familiar language and ideas and each other as resources while they engage in joint activities…(p. 20).

Retention Leads to Long-term Low Tracking

Alexander and Entwisle (1994) examined the longitudinal data from the Beginning Schools Study, which has been monitoring 790 children who began first grade in 1982. The children’s first grade experiences put them at greater risk for lower tracking and placement through their elementary school years. For example, almost three quarters of the children in low first-grade reading groups were retained at some point (over half in first grade). 35% were retained a second time in elementary school. In comparison, only 12% of the first graders in the high reading group were retained at some point in elementary school. Tracking that began in elementary school with reading groups and retention continued in middle school. 61.5% of students who were in low reading groups in first-grade were in low-level English in sixth grade. Of the low reading group students in first grade, only 25% were in high-level sixth grade English.

Possible Solutions

Teachers need to increase their knowledge about the relationship between assessment and instruction.

Assessment tools help teachers guide their instruction. Savitch and Serling state: "As our repertoire of teaching strategies expanded, our lens for assessment assumed a broader view as well". If teachers were to utilize the DRA as an assessment tool, not only would they gain a better sense of their students needs, but it would also provide the student’s next teacher with a wealth of information. A single score does not take into account how the child is using reading strategies, their comprehension or their learning style. Rudolph, NCREL, (1999), states, "To be useful, assessment should provide detailed information about students’ academic progress including what they know, what they can do, how they learn, and where they are having problems".

The DRA, if used correctly, has the ability to assess different aspects of students’ reading including comprehension, strategy-use, awareness and use of cueing systems and instructional level. Teachers need to be encouraged to use the DRA in its entirety. The results then allow them to design instruction that build on the students’ prior knowledge and move them into the zone of proximal development. Examining the strategies students use when they encounter difficulty in their reading will provide important information for instructional decisions that go beyond a reading level. Teaching students what they need to know to solve comprehension or decoding difficulties will help them to become stronger readers and increase their reading level. However, even the DRA in its entirety will not provide teachers with a complete sense of students’ capabilities when used alone. Teachers will gain a better sense of their students by looking at their work in various contexts, such as: independent reading, work in learning centers, small group instruction. Increased communication across grade levels would provide the teachers at the beginning of the year with a better place to build on students’ prior knowledge.

Teachers need to be better informed about the harmful effects of retention.

Retention is a quick fix to a serious problem of low achievement. Many schools are choosing to hold children back instead of offering the support students need to achieve. Research shows that retention can harm students’ self-concepts and has not been found to enhance academic achievement over time. It also is a form of tracking and students are more likely to be in lower classes and even drop out of school. Many teachers refer to the few studies which have shed a positive light on retention for students. These teachers need to be aware that retention studies that have shown a positive outcome for students have tended to focus on the immediate year after retention. Many students will show progress the year they are retained, however, research shows that students begin a downward spiral in academic achievement in the subsequent years.

Holmes (1989) in a meta-analysis of retention found that children who were retained did worse on measures of academic achievement than children who were promoted, especially in the areas of reading achievement. An important discovery s is that although retained students may outperform the promoted students the first year, within 2-3 years, their achievement declines to a level below the children who were promoted. Reynolds (1992) looked at 4^th grade retention with a group of 1,255 low-income children and had similar conclusions. When he compared the retained students with a group of 200 promoted children (matched on reading and math level and teaching ratings prior to retention), he found that children who were retained did significantly lower on math and reading measures. In reading, the retained group gained on average 5 months as compared to the promoted group’s 7 months on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.

Existing support structures for students need to be revised.

The key to retaining fewer students is to help and support them in reaching academic goals early on. Schools have the ability to prevent retention. Schools that set high academic goals and have a strong commitment to support all students in reaching those goals offer every student help early and often during the school year. Wheelock (1998) affirms: "These schools anticipate that students will need extra help to achieve, and they offer it as a regular part of the school day..." (p. 1).

Therefore, existing support structures in Mrs. Soto’s district need to be tailored to better meet the student’s diverse needs. Instead of providing only teachers in "junior first" classes with staff development opportunities, all first grade teachers could receive staff development to enhance their literacy instruction. Time for teachers to collaborate and discuss lessons and units of study together could capitalize on each teacher’s strengths for the benefit of all the first grade students.

Another way to build on the existing structure of support is to make a few changes to the Extended Day Reading Program (EDRP). Mrs. Soto’s school had implemented the EDRP as a way to support at-risk students by providing them with extra instructional time. The EDRP classes met for 1-½ hours before and after school to help students wit their reading. However, the students were often in classes taught by teachers other than their own and consequently, the teachers usually were unaware of the child’s specific needs. EDRP could also be more effective with smaller class sizes. The classes currently have between 18 and 20 students, the same amount of students in their child’s regular classroom, making it very difficult for the teacher to read with each student and not to the students.

One other possible alternative to retention of at-risk students is to expand the learning contract. At the moment, the learning contract focuses on the students’ reading level and provides little detail about the plan of action for the teacher, student, and parents. A more detailed plan like the IEP would require the teacher, parent and student to create an individualized set of goals and what steps would be taken to reach those goals. If the plan were to move across grade levels with the child, it would also provide a wealth of information on the child’s strategy-use, skills, strengths and learning styles for the teacher the following year.

Classroom environments and instruction should meet students’ needs.

Darling-Hammond (1998) suggests that small group instruction and flexible grouping are possible instructional strategies that can help students who are at risk for retention. Small group instruction allows the teacher to provide all the students in the classroom with work that is in their zone of proximal development. It is important that those groups be flexible so that students are not tracked within the classroom and so that the instruction is not outside of the zone of proximal development. Tasks that are too easy or too hard will not move the student forward. Movement between groups should be fluid depending on the students’ progress and what they each need to become better readers. For example, at times students may be grouped by their reading level to work on a specific reading strategy that they will later be responsible for using independently. Other times, students of different reading levels may work in the same small group on a strategy that all of them can work on such as inferencing.

Another possible way to prevent retention is to use collaborative work in heterogeneous groups in the classroom. Bayer (1990) states, "Students develop language and thinking competencies by using these processes regularly for meaningful problem-solving tasks". Collaborative work across the content areas could demonstrate each student’s academic strengths, introduce students to other points of view and learning styles and develop their oral language. The classroom environment created by collaborative work is one in which each individual is respected for what he/she brings to the group.

References

Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D.R . (1994). On the success of failure: A reassessment of the effects of retention on the primary grades. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Barro, S. M., & Kolstad, A. J. (1987). Who drops out of high school?: Findings from high school and beyond. (CS 87-397). Washington DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Bayer, A. S. (1990). Collaborative-apprenticeship learning: Language and thinking across the curriculum. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Byrnes, D. A. (1989). Attitudes of students, parents and educators towards repeating a grade. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Alternatives to grade retention. The School Administrator, 55, 18-21. [Online]. Available: http://www.aasa.org/SA/aug9801.htm

Dawson, P. (1998). A Primer on Student Grade Retention: What the Research Says, NASP Communique, 26 (8).

Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.

Mitchell, R. (1992). From testing to assessment. Testing for learning. New York: The Free Press.

Pierson, L. H., & Connell, J. P. (1992). Effect of grade retention on self-system processes, school engagement, and academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 300-307.

Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Grade retention and school adjustment: An explanatory analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 10-121.

Rudolph, A. (1999). Alternatives to social promotion and grade retention: Overview. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/timely/spover.htm

Savitch, J. H., & Serling, L. A. (1997). "I wouldn’t know I was smart if I didn’t come to this class". In A. L. Goodwin (Ed.), Assessment for equity and inclusion: Embracing all our children. New York: Routledge.

Skinner, E.A., Wellborn, J.G., & Connell, J.P. (1990). What it takes to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived control and children’s engagement and achievement in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 22-32.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wheelock, A. (1998). Extra help and support to meet standards and prevent grade retention. [Online]. Available: http://www.csteep.bc.edu/ctestweb/retention/retention2.html

Yamamoto, K. (1980). Children under stress: The causes and cures. Family Weekly, Ogden Standard Examiner, 6-8.

Yonezawa, S., Wells, A. S., & Serna, I. (2002). Choosing tracks: "Freedom of choice" in detracking schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39 (1), 37-67.