Retention under Chicago's high-stakes testing program: Helpful, harmful, or harmless?

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 309-340

  Roderick, Melissa ^a,b   Nagaoka, Jenny ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Grade retention; High stakes testing; Urban education

Indexed keywords

EID: 29144477122     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737027004309     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1994). On the success of failure: A reassessment of the effects of retention in the primary grades. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Allensworth, E. (2004). Ending social promotion in Chicago: The effects of ending social promotion in the eighth grade on dropout rates. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
3. Baincarosa, G., & Snow, C. D. (2004). Reading next - A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
4. American Educational Research Association. (2000). AERA position statement concerning high stakes testing in pre-K-12 education. Washington, DC: author.
5. Borman, G., & Hewes, G. M. (2002). The long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of success for all. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4(24), 243-266.
6. Boston Public Schools. (2005). Promotion policy. Superintendent's Circular: School Year 2005-2006 (T&L-1). Retrieved September 1, 2005, from http://boston.k12.ma.us/dept/docs/T&L-1.doc.
7. Bryk, A. S. (2003). No Child Left Behind, Chicago style. In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West (Eds.), No Child Left Behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 242-268). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
8. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
9. Bryk, A. S., Thum, Y. M., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (1998). Academic productivity of Chicago Public Schools: A technical report. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
10. Byrnes, D. (1989). Attitudes of students, parents and educators toward repeating a grade. In L. Shepard & M. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 108-131). London: Falmer Press.
11. Dauber, S. L., Alexander, K. L., & Entwistle, D. R. (1993). Characteristics of retainees and early precursors of retention in grade: Who is held back? Palmer Quarterly, 19(3), 326-343.
12. Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Woodruff, S. K. (2004). Improving literacy skills of at-risk adolescents: A schoolwide response. In D.S. Strickland & D.E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap grades 4-12. New York: Teachers College Press.
13. Easton, J. Q., Rosenkranz, T., Bryk, A. S., Jacob, B. A., Luppescu, S., & Roderick, M. (2000). Annual CPS Test Trend Review, 1999. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
14. Ferguson, P., Jimerson, S. R., & Dalton, M. J. (2001). Sorting out successful failure: Exploratory analyses of factors associated with academic and behavioral outcomes of retained students. Psychology in the School, 38(4), 327-341.
15. Finlayson, H. J. (1977). Nonpromotion and self-concept development. Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 206-207.
16. Grissom, J. B., & Shepard, L. A. (1989). Repeating and dropping out of school. In L. Shepard & M. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 34-63). London: Falmer Press.
17. Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade-level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. Shepard & M. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 28-33). London: Falmer Press.
18. Holmes, C. T. (2000). Promoting the end of retention. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(4), 300-314.
19. Holmes, C. T., & Matthews, K. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 225-236.
20. House, E. R. (1998). The predictable failure of Chicago's student retention program. Chicago: Designs for Change.
21. Jackson, G. B. (1975). The research evidence on the effects of grade retention. Review of Educational Research, 45(4), 613-635.
22. Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2002). Remediation education and student achievement: A regression-discontinuity analysis (NBER Working Paper No. 8918). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
23. Jacob, R. T., Stone, S., & Roderick, M. (2004). Ending social promotion: The response of teachers and students. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
24. Jimerson, S. R. (2001a). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 420-437.
25. Jimerson, S. R. (2001b). A synthesis of grade retention research: Looking backward and moving forward. The California School Psychologist, 6, 47-59.
26. 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(1), 3-25.
27. Jimerson, S. R., Kaufman, A. M., Anderson, G. E., Whipple, A. D., Figueroa, L. R., Rocco, F., & O'Brien, K. M. (2002). Beyond grade retention and social promotion: Interventions to promote social and cognitive competence, (pre-publication draft). Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Santa Barbara.
28. Keshk, O. M. G. (2003). CDSIMEQ: A program to implement two-stage probit least squares. The Stata Journal, 3(2), 1-11.
29. Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., Schulte, A., & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259-287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute.
30. Mantzicopoulos, P., & Morrison, D. (1992). Kindergarten retention: Academic and behavioral outcomes through the end of second grade. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 182-198.
31. Miller, S. (2003). Students not yet ready for high school: The role of academic preparation centers in Chicago. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
32. Nagaoka, J., & Roderick, M. (2004). Ending social promotion: The effects of retention. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
33. National Association of School Psychologists. (2003). Position statement on student grade retention and social promotion. Bethesda, MD: author.
34. National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35. North Carolina Public Schools. (1999). Statewide student accountability standards. Accessed on September 1, 2005, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/ student_promotion/draft_standards.html.
36. Paris, S. G., Lawton, T. A., Turner, J. C., & Roth, J. L. (1991). A developmental perspective on standardized achievement testing. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 12-20.
37. Peterson, S. E., DeGracie, J. S., & Ayabe, C. R. (1987). A longitudinal study of the effects of retention/promotion on academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 24(1), 107-118.
38. 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.
39. Plummer, D. L., & Graziano, W. G. (1987). Impact of grade retention on the school development of elementary school children. Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 267-275.
40. Reardon, S. (1996). Eighth grade minimum competency testing and early high school dropout patterns. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York.
41. Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Grade retention and school adjustment: An exploratory analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(2), 101-121.
42. Reynolds, A. J., & Wolfe, B. (1999). Special education and school achievement: An exploratory analysis with a central-city sample. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(3), 249-269.
43. Roderick, M. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the association. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 729-759.
44. Roderick, M., Bryk, A. S., Jacob, B., Easton, J. Q., & Allensworth, E. (1999). Ending social promotion in Chicago: Results from the first two years. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
45. Roderick, M., Engel, M., & Nagaoka, J. (2003). Ending social promotion in Chicago: Results from Summer Bridge. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
46. Roderick, M., Jacob, B., & Bryk, A. S. (2003). High stakes testing in Chicago: Effects on achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 333-358.
47. Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., Bacon, J., & Easton, J. Q. (2000). Update ending social promotion in Chicago: Passing, retention, and achievement trends among promoted and retained students. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
48. Rose, J. S., Medway, F. J., Cantrell, V. L., & Marus, S. H. (1983). A fresh look at the retention-promotion controversy. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 201-211.
49. Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1986). Synthesis of research on school readiness and kindergarten retention. Educational Leadership, 44, 78-86.
50. Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1989). Introduction and overview, In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 1-15). London: Falmer Press.
51. Shepard, L. A., Smith, M. L., & Marion, S. F. (1996). Failed evidence on grade retention. Psychology in the Schools, 33(3), 251-406.
52. Smith, M. L., & Shepard, L. A. (1987). What doesn't work: Explaining policies of retention in the early grades. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 129-134.
53. Tompchin, F. M., & Impara, J. C. (1992). Unraveling teachers' belief about grade retention. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 199-223.