Alternatives to retention and social promotion: The availability of instructional options

Remedial and Special Education

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 258-268

  Picklo, Dawn M ^b   Christenson, Sandra L ^a,b  

^a Department of Educational and Child Psychology ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 26644470572     PISSN: 07419325     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/07419325050260050101     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Barnett, K. P., Clarizio, H. F., & Payette, K. A. (1996). Grade retention among students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 285-293.
2. Christenson, S. L., Picklo, D. M., Triezenberg, H. L., Anderson, A. R., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2004). Consequences of high-stakes assessment for students with and without disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
3. Clinton, W. (1998). State of the union address (January 1, 1998). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
4. Clinton, W. (1999). State of the union address (January 1, 1999). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
5. Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Standards of practice for learner-centered schools. New York: Columbia University, National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching (NCREST).
6. Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Alternatives to grade retention. The School Administrator, 55(7), 18-21.
7. Davison, M. L., Davenport, E. C., Kwak, N., Peterson, K. A., Irish, M. L., Seo, Y. S., et al. (2002). The "No Child Left Behind" Act and Minnesota's standards, assessments, and accountability: 2002 policy brief. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development, Office of Educational Accountability.
8. Defur, S. H. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with disabilities: One state's approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 203-211.
9. Denton, D. R. (2001). Finding alternatives to failure: Can states end social promotion and reduce retention rates? Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
10. Elliott, J. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2001). Improving test performance of students with disabilities on district and state assessments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11. 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 (pp. 16-33). London: Falmer Press.
12. Holmes, C. T., & Matthews, K. M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54, 225-236.
13. Jackson, G. (1975). The research evidence of the effects of grade retention. Review of Educational Research, 45, 613-635.
14. Jimerson, S. (1999). On the failure of failure: Examining the association between early grade retention and education and employment outcomes during late adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 243-272.
15. Jimerson, S. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30, 420-437.
16. Jimerson, S., Carlson, E., Rotert, M., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). A prospective, longitudinal study of the correlates and consequences of early grade retention. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 3-25.
17. McCay, E. (Ed.). (2001). Moving beyond retention and social promotion [special issue]. Phi Delta Kappa International.
18. McCollum, P., Cortez, A., Maroney, H., & Montes, F. (1999). Failing our children: Finding alternatives to in-grade retention. San Antonio, TX: Intercultural Development Research Association. Retrieved June 24, 2003, from http://www.idra.org/Research/ingrade.htm#Ingrade
19. McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morrison, P. (Eds.). (1997), Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20. McLeskey, J., & Grizzle, K. L. (1992). Grade retention rates among students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 548-554.
21. National Association of School Psychologists. (1998). Position statement: Student retention and social promotion. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
22. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23. National Dropout Prevention Center, (n.d.). NDPC policy statement on student grade retention. Retrieved June 24, 2003, from http://www. dropoutprevention.org/retent_policy/retent_policy.htm
24. Owings, W. A., & Kaplan, L. S. (2001). Standards, retention, and social promotion. NASSP Bulletin, 85(629), 57-66.
25. Quenemoen, R. F., Lehr, C. A., Thurlow, M. L., Thompson, S. J., & Bolt, S. (2000). Social promotion and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges in developing state policies (Synthesis Report No. 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 19, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis34
26. Roderick, M. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the association. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 729-759.
27. Roderick, M., Bryk, A. S., Jacob, B. A., Easton, J. Q., & Allensworth, E. (1999). Ending social promotion: Results from the first two years. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
28. Roderick, M., & Engel, M. (2001). The grasshopper and the ant: Motivational responses of low-achieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 197-227.
29. Roderick, M., Jacob, B. A., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 333-357.
30. Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1990). Synthesis of research on grade retention. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 84-88.
31. Smirk, J. (2001). Alternatives to retention. NASSP Bulletin, 85(629), 3-15.
32. Thompson, C. L., & Cunningham, E. K. (2000). Retention and social promotion: Research and implications for policy (Report No. EDO-UD-00-0). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449241).
33. Thurlow, M. L., & Johnson, D. R. (2000). High-stakes testing of students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 305-314.
34. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Taking responsibility for ending social promotion: A guide for educators and state and local leaders. Retrieved January 8, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/socialpromotion/intro.html
35. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Christenson, S. L. (2002). FAAB: Functional assessment of academic behavior: Creating successful learning environments. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.