USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Third grade retention and Florida's pupil progression plan

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Third grade retention and Florida's pupil progression plan individual and school characteristics associated with long-term outcomes in reading performance
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Powell, Heather A
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Assessment
Achievement
Remediation
Academic
Policy
Dissertations, Academic -- School Psychology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: Literacy is a growing national concern that has resulted in federal legislation (e.g., the No Child Left Behind Act) instituting higher accountability for states and schools with regard to reading instruction and remediation. As a result, Florida's statewide measure of achievement, the reading portion of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT-Reading) is now tied to retention decisions for students in the third grade as part of the pupil progression plan for the state. In its first year of implementation (2003), 23% of third-grade students failed the FCAT and over 28,000 were retained. Though failure rates are decreasing, (i.e., 6% of third grade students failed in 2006), tremendous numbers of students continue to be affected by this policy.Research has consistently shown retention to be a negative experience for children; 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 two to three years. However, these findings cannot be generalized to the current student progression plan in Florida, which mandates remediation activities and diligent progress monitoring during and after the retention year. Therefore, holding negative beliefs about the third grade retention policy in Florida is premature as only preliminary research exists to date evaluating the outcomes of the plan. The present study examined the student progression plan in Florida as it relates to performance on the FCAT-Reading and mandated third-grade retention.More specifically, this study examined the relationship between reading performance outcomes and various student characteristics (e.g., retention status, gender, SES, race/ethnicity) as well as school-related variables (e.g., school-wide SES status, school size, Reading First status). This study also explored fifth and sixth grade performance on the FCAT-Reading of low-performing students who were promoted through good cause exemptions. Descriptive analyses revealed that of 12,685 third-grade students retained in 2003, 40% scored at Level 1 in 2006. With regard to students who were promoted due to a good cause exemption, findings indicated that a higher proportion of those who demonstrated reading proficiency through an alternative assessment procedure (67%) or through student portfolios (58%) achieved success in 2006 compared to those who did not demonstrate proficiency (13%-19%). In addition, retention status was significantly associated with scores on the 5th grade FCAT-Reading, but that association varied by student gender.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Heather A. Powell.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 115 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001920213
oclc - 187931560
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002097
usfldc handle - e14.2097
System ID:
SFS0026415:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001920213
003 fts
005 20080107112050.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080107s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002097
035
(OCoLC)187931560
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
LB1051 (ONLINE)
1 100
Powell, Heather A.
0 245
Third grade retention and Florida's pupil progression plan :
b individual and school characteristics associated with long-term outcomes in reading performance
h [electronic resource] /
by Heather A. Powell.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2007.
520
ABSTRACT: Literacy is a growing national concern that has resulted in federal legislation (e.g., the No Child Left Behind Act) instituting higher accountability for states and schools with regard to reading instruction and remediation. As a result, Florida's statewide measure of achievement, the reading portion of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT-Reading) is now tied to retention decisions for students in the third grade as part of the pupil progression plan for the state. In its first year of implementation (2003), 23% of third-grade students failed the FCAT and over 28,000 were retained. Though failure rates are decreasing, (i.e., 6% of third grade students failed in 2006), tremendous numbers of students continue to be affected by this policy.Research has consistently shown retention to be a negative experience for children; 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 two to three years. However, these findings cannot be generalized to the current student progression plan in Florida, which mandates remediation activities and diligent progress monitoring during and after the retention year. Therefore, holding negative beliefs about the third grade retention policy in Florida is premature as only preliminary research exists to date evaluating the outcomes of the plan. The present study examined the student progression plan in Florida as it relates to performance on the FCAT-Reading and mandated third-grade retention.More specifically, this study examined the relationship between reading performance outcomes and various student characteristics (e.g., retention status, gender, SES, race/ethnicity) as well as school-related variables (e.g., school-wide SES status, school size, Reading First status). This study also explored fifth and sixth grade performance on the FCAT-Reading of low-performing students who were promoted through good cause exemptions. Descriptive analyses revealed that of 12,685 third-grade students retained in 2003, 40% scored at Level 1 in 2006. With regard to students who were promoted due to a good cause exemption, findings indicated that a higher proportion of those who demonstrated reading proficiency through an alternative assessment procedure (67%) or through student portfolios (58%) achieved success in 2006 compared to those who did not demonstrate proficiency (13%-19%). In addition, retention status was significantly associated with scores on the 5th grade FCAT-Reading, but that association varied by student gender.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 115 pages.
Includes vita.
590
Advisor: Michael J. Curtis, Ph.D.
653
Assessment.
Achievement.
Remediation.
Academic.
Policy.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x School Psychology
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2097



PAGE 1

Third Grade Retention a nd Floridas Pupil Progression Plan: Individual a nd Sch ool Characteristics Associated w ith Long Term Outcomes i n Reading Performance by Heather A. Powell A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychological and Social Foundations College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Michael J. Curtis, Ph.D. George Batsche, Ed.D. Kathy L. Bradley Klug, Ph.D. Constan ce Hines, Ph.D. Richard Marshall, Ph.D. Date of Approval: July 11, 2007 Keywords: assessment, achievement, remediation, academic, policy Copyright 2007 Heather Powell

PAGE 2

To my father, Jon Lillemoe, who taught me that learning is a lifelong endeavor

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements The author would like to express her gratitude to individuals and organizations that were critical to the completion of this project. I extend my sincere appreciation to the Florida Department of Education for t he privilege of accessing the statewide student database, to each of my committee members for their keen eyes and astute comments, and to Bethany Bell Edison for her statistical expertise. Special thanks are extended to Mike Curtis, for his unwavering supp ort and constant encouragement through my graduate program. His academic expertise and holistic approach to mentoring have been invaluable at each step, and I hope to emulate his dedication to students and colleagues in my own career as a school psychologi st. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Michael, for his patience, flexibility, adventurous spirit, and constant belief in my dreams.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract v Chapter I: Introduction 1 Purpose of the Study 9 Research Questions 10 Significance of Study 11 D efinition of Terms 12 Chapter II: Literature Review 15 Enactment of Federal and State Legislature 15 Recent Trend s in Grade Retention 21 Characteristics of Retained Children 2 2 Evidence of Positive Outcomes of Retention 23 Evidence of Negative Outcomes of Retention 2 9 Factors that Influen ce Retention Outcomes 36 Effects of Retention Policy 38 Methodological Issues to Consider 4 5 Future Directions in Retention Research 46 Chapter III: Method 49 Pu rpose of the Study 49 Sample 50 Measures 51 Procedures and Data Preparation 53 Data Analysis 54 Research Questions 54 Research Question 1 54 Research Question 2 54 Research Q uestion 3 54 Research Question 4 55 Research Question 5 55 Ch apter IV: Results 64

PAGE 5

ii Des cription of Sample 64 Research Questions 66 Research Question 1 66 Research Question 2 67 Research Question 3 74 Research Question 4 74 Research Question 5 74 Model 1 78 Model 2 82 Model 3 82 Model 4 83 Model 5 84 Chapter V: Discu ssion 87 S ummary of Findings 88 Limitations 95 Delimitations 99 Implications for Practi ce and Future Research 99 Conclusion 103 References 106 Appendices 114 Appen dix A 115 About the Author End page

PAGE 6

iii List of Tables Table 1 Dummy Coding for Student and School variables 57 Table 2 Students Scoring Level 1 on the 2003 FCAT Reading and Retention/Promotion Status by Gender, Race/Ethnicit y, and SES 66 Table 3 Performance of Retained Students on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006 by Level 67 Table 4 Number and Percent of Students Promoted to 4 th Grade due to Good Cause Exemption by Type of Exemption 68 Table 5 Performance of Stude nts Promoted through Good Cause on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2005 by Level 69 Table 6 Level 1 Promoted Students Performance on the 2005 5 th grade FCAT Reading by Good Cause Exemption 70 Table 7 Performance of Students Promoted through Good Cause on the 6 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006 by Level 72 Table 8 Level 1 Promoted Students Performance on the 2006 6 th grade FCAT Reading by Good Cause Exemption 73 Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations for Student and School Level Variables 76 Table 10 Pearson Product Moment Correlations for Student and School Level Variables 78 Table 11 HLM Means as Outcomes Models: Selected School Characteristics as Predictors of Variation Between Schools in Performance on 5 th Grade FCAT Reading 80

PAGE 7

iv List of Figures Figure 1 Retention Status X Gender Effects on 5 th grade FCAT Reading Score 85

PAGE 8

v THIRD GRADE RETENTION AND FLORIDAS PUPIL PROGRESSION PLAN: INDIVIDUAL AND SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH LONG TERM OUTCOMES IN READING PER FORMANCE Heather A. Powell ABSTRACT Literacy is a growing national concern that has resulted in federal legislation (e.g., the No Child Left Behind Act) instituting higher accountability for states and schools with regard to reading instruction and rem ediation. As a result, Floridas statewide measure of achievement, the reading portion of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT Reading) is now tied to retention decisions for students in the third grade as part of the pupil progression plan for the state. In its first year of implementation (2003) 23% of third grade students failed the FCAT and over 28,000 were retained. Though failure rates are decreasing, (i.e., 6% of third grade students failed in 2006), tremendous numbers of students continu e to be affected by this policy. R esearch has consistently shown retention to be a negative experience for children; even when academic gains are made, their subsequent achievement is equal to or lower than that of both same grade and same age regularly p romoted students within two to three years. However, these findings cannot be generalized to the current student progression plan in Florida, which mandates remediation activities and diligent progress monitoring during and after the retention year. Theref ore, holding negative beliefs about the third grade retention policy in Florida is premature as only preliminary research exists

PAGE 9

vi to date evaluating the outcomes of the plan. The present study examined the student progression plan in Florida as it relates t o performance on the FCAT Reading and mandated third grade retention. More specifically, this study examined the relationship between reading performance outcomes and various student characteristics (e.g., retention status, gender, SES, race/ethnicity) as well as school related variables (e.g., school wide SES status, school size, Reading First status). This study also explored fifth and sixth grade performance on the FCAT Reading of low performing students who were promoted through good cause exemptions. D escriptive analyses revealed that of 12,685 third grade students retained in 2003, 40% scored at Level 1 in 2006. With regard to students who were promoted due to a good cause exemption, findings indicated that a higher proportion of those who demonstrated reading proficien cy through an alternative assessment procedure (67%) or through student portfolios (58%) achieved success in 2006 compared to those who did not demonstrate proficiency (13% 19%). In addition, retention status was significantly associated with scores on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading, but that association varied by student gender.

PAGE 10

CHAPTER ONE Introduction Literacy is a growing national concern, justified by statistics reporting that only 32% of our nations fourth grade children read proficiently (United States Department of Education, 2002). In addition, there is a growing achievement gap, such that the performance of top achievers has increased over time while that of the poorest achievers has declined (United States Department of Ed ucation, 2002). These developments have been alarming, provoking new federal legislation (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act) to address these issues, the effects of which have proven to be far reaching (United States Department of Education, 2003a). Since th e No Child Left Behind Act was enacted on January 8, 2002, initiatives have been undertaken across the country to restructure many aspects of the American educational system (NCLB, 2002). The law was designed to address the countrys reading crisis; its ov erriding goal is for every child to be reading at a proficient level by the 2013 2014 school year (United States Department of Education, 2003b). To this end, the law includes requirements regarding school and state accountability, including procedures to measure student progress. The law mandates the demonstration of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in student performance by every state; thus, each state is required to set annual goals for its schools and propose a way to systematically measure progress towa rd attainment of those goals (United States Department of

PAGE 11

2 Education, 2003c). In order to address the widening achievement gap, states are no longer allowed to aggregate achievement data across economic background, race/ethnicity, English proficiency or dis ability status; schools now must disaggregate performance data and demonstrate that all students are learning and that those who are disadvantaged or at risk are not being left behind. Although the Act has been criticized in some quarters for the failur e to financially support its mandates, funds have been allocated to support some specific programs. For example, funds are available to assist states in the implementation of empirically based reading programs, though research has shown that the specific components of such programs need to be delineated (e.g., classroom management, skills instruction, literature emphasis, scaffolding; Pressley et al., 2001). States apply for the funds through the Reading First program and funding is granted based on the number of children aged 5 17 years who are considered low income in each state (United States Department of Education, 2003d). The acquisition of Reading First funds is a large part of Floridas response to the No Child Left Behind Act. Florida has estab lished goals according to which 31% of its students are to be reading proficiently by the 2003 04 school year, 48% by 2006 07, 65% by 2009 10, 82% by 2012 13, and 100% by 2013 14 (Florida Department of Education, 2003a). With Reading First funds ($52 milli on annually, for six years), schools around the state will be instructing children using research based reading programs (Florida Department of Education, 2003b). In addition to preventative programs such as Reading First, the State of Florida

PAGE 12

3 also enacte d a new retention policy, effective January 7, 2003 (The Florida Senate, 2003). Designed to align Florida policies with federal law, this new policy places heavy emphasis on remediation of reading deficiencies and is strongly tied to the standardized test used to quantify student performance, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). The reading portion of the FCAT is administered every year to students in grades 3 10 and purports to measure students progress towards attainment of predefined academ ic standards in reading (i.e., Sunshine State Standards) according to five levels, defined using the following scaled scores: Level 1:100 258, Level 2: 259 283, Level 3: 284 331, Level 4: 332 393, and Level 5: 394 500 (Florida Department of Education, 2003 c). Students who score at a Level 1 are assumed to be having little success with the challenging content of the Sunshine State Standards. At Level 2, students are having limited success with the same content. With regard to reading, it is imperative th at students master the basic skills at the lower grade levels (grades K 3), as in fourth grade and beyond, students are expected to utilize reading skills in all academic areas. Without basic reading skills, the chances of student success are severely limi ted, since the approach to teaching reading shifts from basic skills to more advanced applications of those skills at this critical juncture (Just Read, Florida, 2003). The state contends that third grade students who are achieving at Level 1 have not mast ered the most basic reading skills, indicating that they are not ready to move on to the more challenging material of the fourth grade; consequently, students who score at Level 1 on the FCAT Reading and are not eligible for promotion according to one of six predefined good cause exemptions are to be retained in third grade (The Florida Senate, 2003). Though

PAGE 13

4 perceived by some as pejorative, the retention policy in this context is viewed as an effort towards the remediation of current academic difficulti es and the prevention of additional difficulties in the students future academic careers. Despite the policys emphasis on remediation through retention, the State of Florida recognizes that grade retention may not be the most appropriate decision for eac h student scoring at a Level 1 on the FCAT Reading. For this reason, six guidelines were developed, indicating those circumstances under which a student scoring at Level 1 on the FCAT Reading can still be promoted to the fourth grade. These good cause exe mptions include [a]limited English proficient (LEP) students with less than two years in an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program, [b]students with disabilities whose individual educational plan (IEP) indicated that participation in the FCAT was not appropriate, [c]demonstration of an acceptable level of performance on an alternate assessmentor scoring at the 51st percentile or higher on the norm referenced test portion of the FCAT, [d]demonstration of proficiency in Sunshine State Stand ards through a student portfolio, [e]students with disabilities who participate in the FCAT(but)still demonstrate a deficiency in reading after more than two years of intensive remediation and were previously retained in kindergarten, first, second, or t hird grade, and [f]students who still demonstrate a deficiency in reading after two or more years of intensive remediation and were previously retained in kindergarten, first, second, or third grade for a total of two years (Florida Department of Educatio n, 2003e, p. 1). Notably, of these good cause exemptions, only two (i.e., alternate assessment and student portfolio) indicate that a student has displayed proficiency in reading skills at a third

PAGE 14

5 grade level. The 2003 FCAT was administered several months after the new retention policy went into effect, resulting in a total of 28,028 (14.6%) third grade students being retained in grade for the 2003 2004 school year (Florida Department of Education, 2003d). In 2004, the numbers were similar, with 23,283 (11 .0%) third grade students being retained in grade (Florida Department of Education, 2004a). The tremendous numbers of students who continue to be affected by the policy combined with longstanding belief that grade retention is detrimental to students acad emic progress call for a careful re examination of the literature regarding grade retention, as well as empirical examination of the impact of this new policy. The practice of grade retention is not a new phenomenon; in fact, retention literature spans sev eral decades. Despite prevailing negative beliefs, some studies (e.g., Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1994; Gottfredson, Fink, & Graham, 1994; Mantzicopoulos, 1997) have reported positive effects of retention, to varying degrees. In some cases, small acade mic gains may be seen (Mantzicopoulos, 1997), particularly when comparing retainees with younger, same grade peers (Alexander et al., 1994). However, a larger number of studies have found that benefits are short term and that within two to three years, the achievement of retainees is equal to or lower than that of both same grade and same age peers (Jimerson, 1999; Jimerson, Carlson, Rotert, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1997; Mantzicopoulos, 1997, Mantzicopoulos & Morrison, 1992; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999). In addition, it is interesting to note that increases in performance are most often found only in mathematics; reading remains a consistent

PAGE 15

6 deficit in retained children (Jimerson et al., 1997; Mantzicopoulos, 1997). Despite a few studies in which positive results hav e been reported, the overwhelming majority of research indicates that grade retention does not have a remedial effect; rather, it operates to produce the direct opposite of desired effects. This is particularly true for several groups of students who can b e considered at risk for being retained or experiencing negative outcomes subsequent to the retention year. These risk factors include being male, a member of an ethnic minority group, or living in poverty (e.g., McCoy & Reynolds, 1999; Reynolds, 1992). Reported negative outcomes have included lower reading achievement as measured by standardized tests (Jimerson, 1999; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999), increased social and behavior problems (Pagani, Tremblay, Vitaro, Boulerice, & McDuff, 2001), and increased dropo ut rates (Jimerson, 1999). These types of results were consistent across many studies using a variety of designs and analyses. In addition to examining student variables as possible mediators of retention outcomes, it is important to consider ecological f actors as well. Previous research has shown that school characteristics significantly influence general student achievement (Ma & Willms, 2004), suggesting that these same characteristics may have the potential to impact achievement following a retention y ear as well. Specifically, schoolwide student socioeconomic (SES) level has been found to have a large effect on student achievement (e.g., Rumberger & Palardy, 2005); in one study, school SES was found to have a larger effect on achievement than did indiv idual SES (Ma & Willms, 2004). School policies and practices have also been implicated in at least one study as having a significant effect on

PAGE 16

7 student achievement, such that when these are accounted for, the effects of school SES are rendered insignificant (Rumberger & Palardy, 2005). These results are notable in light of current educational policies in the State of Florida, including statewide retention laws as well as federally funded Reading First programs, which have been established in some, but not al l, of Floridas schools. Though limited in scope and number, studies that examine retention specifically within a larger context of state or school policy have begun to emerge. Given the vast impact of recent federal legislation on educational practices, i t will become increasingly important for studies to adopt this wider view of retention. In their 2005 study, Hong and Raudenbush offered an example of this expansion by considering not only the effect of retention on retained students, but also the average effect of a retention policy on all students, particularly on those who would be promoted under a schoolwide retention policy (i.e., high achievers). Similarly, Powell (2005) and Porter (2005) have contributed early results on student achievement using da ta from the State of Florida, the site of the current study. These mixed results, along with previous research, highlight the importance of utilizing a longitudinal design when examining retention, as true effects may not be seen within the first year afte r a student is retained in grade. Results from the former study (Powell, 2005) indicated a qualitative difference in subsequent performance among students promoted through the six good cause exemptions in place in Florida, specifically between the two exem ptions requiring students to demonstrate proficiency through alternative methods and the remaining four exemptions, which do not require proficiency. Taken together, these studies provide clear examples of the direction

PAGE 17

8 retention research must take in ligh t of the current educational climate and legislation. Studies describing negative outcomes and warning against the practice of retention are plentiful; however, it is imperative that these outcomes be interpreted with caution, as it is very difficult to d esign a methodologically sound study when looking at outcomes of grade retention. The grade retention literature abounds with methodological problems, including the absence of comparison groups (McCoy & Reynolds, 1999; Meisels & Liaw, 1993), a lack of cons ideration of socio economic variables (Mantzicopoulos, 1997; Mantzicopoulos & Morrison, 1992), and a lack of longitudinal data (Buntaine & Costenbader, 1997). Perhaps most relevant to the current study, all previously published studies have failed to indic ate what, if any, remediation efforts were made in conjunction with grade retention (e.g., Armistead, Kempton, Lynch, & Forhand, 1992; Gottfredson et al., 1994; Jimerson, 2001). This raises questions about the application of past results to the educational climate in Florida, as Floridas policy does not allow a child to repeat a grade without the provision of additional, intensive remediation in place. 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 indi vidual skill deficiencies. Examples of instructional modifications included pull out services, one on one tutor instruction, peer tutors, and the employment of reading coaches. AIPs also included periodic evaluation to determine if

PAGE 18

9 retained students were m aking progress towards their academic goals. While state law was quite clear regarding remediation requirements, specific data verifying treatment integrity of AIPs was lacking. Nevertheless, most of the students in this study were required to have AIPs in place following their FCAT Reading performance in 2003, thus holding negative beliefs about the efficacy of the current student progression plan in Florida is premature as research evaluating the outcomes of the plan was limited. It should be noted that i n July 2006, legislation replaced the AIP with a mandated Progress Monitoring Plan (PMP) that places greater emphasis on the use of data to monitor student performance; however, similar implementation and integrity issues need to be addressed (Florida Depa rtment of Education, 2006). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to evaluate the longitudinal effects of third grade retention practices in the State of Florida, as measured by scores on the state mandated standardized test (FCAT Reading). R etention as practiced in the State of Florida (i.e., within the context of a state mandated remediation program) is largely unstudied. Though exploratory data on the short term academic outcomes of third grade retention for one cohort exist (Porter, 2005; Powell, 2005), this study will extend those findings by examining retained students performance in fifth grade (i.e., three years post retention) and comparing it to the fifth grade performance of low achieving third grade students who were promoted to th e fourth grade in 2003 through one of the two good cause exemptions that indicate proficiency. This study will also examine the relationship between subsequent performance on the FCAT Reading and various student

PAGE 19

10 characteristics (i.e., gender, race/ethnicit y, socioeconomic status, retention status) and school variables (i.e., Reading First status, school size, school socioeconomic status), which likely play a large role in academic outcomes, regardless of individual student characteristics. Research Question s In order to explore the effectiveness of third grade retention, this study utilized FCAT Reading scores from the 2003, 2004, and 2005 administrations to address the following research questions: 1. For Florida students who scored at Level 1 on the 3 rd grade FCAT Reading in 2003 and were retained in third grade during the 2003 2004 school year, what proportion scored at Level 2 or higher on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006? 2. For Florida students who scored at Level 1 on the 3 rd grade FCAT Reading in 2003, b ut were promoted to the fourth grade for the 2003 2004 school year through one of six good cause exemptions, what proportion for each exemption scored at Level 2 or higher on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2005, and the 6 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006? 3. To wh at extent do differences in performance on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading exist between students who scored at Level 1 in 2003 and were retained in third grade during 2003 2004 and those who scored at Level 1 in 2003 but were promoted through one of the two go od cause exemptions requiring a demonstration of proficiency? 4. To what extent are observed differences on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading between

PAGE 20

11 students who were retained in 2003 and students who were promoted in 2003 through a good cause exemption indicating proficiency moderated by the following student characteristics: gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status? 5. To what extent are observed differences in performance on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading between students who were retained in 2003 and students w ho were promoted in 2003 through a good cause exemption indicating proficiency moderated by the following school characteristics: Reading First status, school size, schoolwide student socioeconomic status? Significance of Study The present investigation w as designed to function as a follow up study to preliminary results (Powell, 2005) and addressed several methodological issues that plague the retention literature. First, it involved the analysis of long term data, allowing for an examination of reading a chievement of retained students three years after the retention. In addition, these data allowed direct comparison of low achieving students who experienced retention and low achieving students who were promoted due to a good cause exemption, as each have taken the fifth grade FCAT Reading, albeit one year apart. Another important contribution of this study comes in its inclusion of school level variables (i.e., Reading First status, school size, school socioeconomic status), which provided a context within which to interpret student outcomes. Finally, there has been a consistent lack of focus on potential academic modifications implemented during the retained year. It is largely unknown whether the

PAGE 21

12 students included in most previous studies received instru ction during the retained year that was quantitatively and/or qualitatively different from that of the year prior. Because the State of Florida mandates a systematic plan of remediation for every child who is retained in the third grade (Florida Department of Education, 2003f), the current study aimed to examine the longitudinal outcomes of retention among students who were required to receive intense remedial instruction during the retained year. The findings of this study make an important contribution to the literature on grade retention by addressing an area that has heretofore gone unexamined. Definition of Terms Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) The FCAT is a standardized test designed to measure student performance in reading, writing, and mathematics in accordance with the Sunshine State Standards. It also represents the foundation of the federally mandated and state created accountability system (Florida Department of Education, 2003c). Sunshine State Standards. The Sunshine State Standar ds are a set of benchmarks developed by the Florida Department of Education and adopted in 1996. These standards identify the academic skills that the State of Florida wants its students to have attained at each grade level (Florida Department of Education 2003c). Retention in grade. This refers to the act of repeating a grade level. A student can be retained in grade but participate in curriculum not associated with grade level (e.g., retained in third grade due to reading difficulties but attend a fourth grade math class), or be promoted but return to previous curriculum for a problematic subject area (e.g.,

PAGE 22

13 promoted to fourth grade, but attend a third grade reading class). While these types of gradations exist with regards to retention and promotion deci sions, the present study focuses only on students who were retained in third grade after failing to score Level 2 or above on the FCAT. In Florida, retention is to be accompanied by intensive remediation efforts. Academic Improvement Plan (AIP). An AIP is a set of formalized instructional modifications and related goals that are designed to address specific skill deficits in any child who is not meeting academic benchmarks in a timely manner; AIPs are state mandated in Florida (Florida Department of Educati on, 2002). Good cause exemptions. These exemptions are six guidelines indicating the circumstances under which a student scoring Level 1 on the FCAT can still be promoted to the fourth grade. They include [a]limited English proficient (LEP) students with less than two years in an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program, [b]students with disabilities whose individual educational plan (IEP) indicated that participation in the FCAT was not appropriate, [c]demonstration of an acceptable level of performance on an alternate assessmentor scoring at the 51st percentile or higher on the norm referenced test portion of the FCAT, [d]demonstration of proficiency in Sunshine State Standards through a student portfolio, [e]students with disabilities who participate in the FCAT(but)still demonstrate a deficiency in reading after more than two years of intensive remediation and were previously retained in kindergarten, first, second, or third grade, and [f]students who still demonstrate a deficiency in re ading after two or more years of intensive remediation and were previously retained in kindergarten,

PAGE 23

14 first, second, or third grade for a total of two years (Florida Department of Education, 2003e p. 1 ). No Child Left Behind Act. The No Child Left Behind Act is federal legislation passed on January 8, 2002, directly addressing the reading crisis in this country; it established strict guidelines for school and state accountability. The Act plans for every child to be reading proficiently by the year 2013 20 14 (NCLB, 2002). Adequate Yearly Progress. States are required by NCLB to set annual goals for adequate progress for their schools and to measure progress toward the attainment of those goals in a systematic way each year through standardized tests; fundin g is secured on the basis of states success in meeting those goals (United States Department of Education, 2003c). Reading First Reading First is a federal program established through NCLB that distributes additional funds to assist states in the impleme ntation of empirically based reading programs. Funding is based on the number of children aged 5 17 years who are considered low income in each state (United States Department of Education, 2003d).

PAGE 24

15 CHAPTER TWO Literature Review In this information ag e, with almost constant technological discoveries, it is astonishing to realize that only 32% of Americas fourth graders read proficiently (United States Department of Education, 2002). Since the initial passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education A ct in 1965, taxpayers have invested over $321 billion in federal funds alone in public education; yet the average reading scores for 17 year olds have not shown improvement since the 1970s (United States Department of Education, 2002). While scores of the top achievers have improved over time, those of the poorest performers have declined (United States Department of Education, 2002). Most of the children who are nonproficient in reading are minority students who live in poverty, creating a disturbing achi evement gap. Recent federal legislation (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act) is reflecting acknowledgement of, as well as concern over this fact, by creating and implementing standards regarding student progression (United States Department of Education, 2003a ). They are not only more rigorous for every child but also include new accountability procedures designed to ensure that substandard performance by any child is not tolerated as it was in the past. Enactment of Federal and State Legislation The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was enacted on January 8, 2002 and has

PAGE 25

16 changed the face of education across the country (NCLB, 2002). The law directly addresses the countrys reading crisis by establishing strict guidelines for both student performance as well as s chool and state accountability. The overriding goal of the law is for every child to be reading at a proficient level by the 2013 2014 school year (United States Department of Education, 2003b). To this end, each state is required to demonstrate Adequate Y early Progress (AYP) in educating its students, though states are allowed some freedom in the adoption of procedures used to monitor progress. States are required to set annual goals for adequate progress for their schools and measure progress toward the a ttainment of those goals in a systematic way through standardized tests; funding will be secured on the basis of states success in meeting their established goals. In addition, schools that do not meet those academic standards will be identified as needin g improvement and the parents of children enrolled in such schools can, with the aid of district funds, choose to send their children to a higher performing public school or to secure additional tutoring (United States Department of Education, 2003c). Mon itoring of academic progress is not a new concept in this country; however, the No Child Left Behind Act also has identified and addressed some issues with past methods of accountability. For example, previously, schools as well as states could report aggr egated data across the total population of students; high scores could balance out very low scores, giving the impression that the school was effectively teaching all of its students. However, many schools were effectively reaching only a certain subset of students; minorities, poor students and children with disabilities or limited English proficiency (LEP) were consistently being left behind. In response to this problem,

PAGE 26

17 NCLB no longer allows data to be aggregated across students, schools, districts or states; test scores must be disaggregated and reported by subgroups based on economic background, race/ethnicity, English proficiency, and disability status. It is hoped that with these procedures in place, the achievement gaps that exist between groups of students will be diminished (United States Department of Education, 2003a). In addition to lofty achievement goals and stringent accountability plans, the NCLB allows for additional federal funds to be distributed to states for the purposes of implementi ng scientifically proven, empirically based reading programs. The National Reading Panel (2000) identified five basic skills essential for early reading success, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. States can apply for funds through the federal Reading First program with funding based on the number of children aged 5 17 years who are considered low income (United States Department of Education, 2003d). The funds are to be used to teach the five basic skills in a systematic and evidence based manner, and the students must be monitored closely (yearly state assessments) to ensure that they are moving toward success (United States Department of Education, 2003d). Since each state can establish and enforce its own standards and design its own tests, it is helpful to look more specifically at Floridas response to the No Child Left Behind Act. The State of Florida is committed to compliance with the new federal law and has set intermediate goals to this end. The state has establis hed goals stipulating that 31% of students are to be reading proficiently by the 2003 04 school year, 48% by 2006 07, 65% by 2009 10, 82% by 2012 13, and 100% by 2013 14 (Florida Department of

PAGE 27

18 Education, 2003a). The State has applied for and received $52 m illion in annual funding (over $300 million across six years) in Reading First funds and plans to use the money in schools around the state with large numbers of at risk children (Florida Department of Education, 2003b). These schools must demonstrate thro ugh a competitive application process that they are committed to providing not only the required research based reading programs, but an additional block of time devoted to the use of these techniques as well. Children in these schools are to receive nearl y twice the amount of reading instruction as children in typical schools. The hope is that intensive reading intervention will have a preventative effect. Prevention programs such as these have received a tremendous amount of attention and are argued to be a key in addressing the reading crisis in Florida. In addition to prevention, the State of Florida has implemented what some would consider to be rather drastic intervention strategies to address other current educational issues. New retention policies we nt into effect on January 7, 2003, the consequences of which continue to sweep the state (The Florida Senate, 2003). These policies include mandatory retention at the end of grade 3 for students whose reading deficiencies are not successfully remediated, a s measured by performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). This policy is designed to align Florida policies with federal law to ensure that the educational system in this state will not let any child fail to learn to read; it will inst ead continue its efforts in assisting all children to achieve academic success. Inherent in the retention policy is an emphasis on prevention and/or remediation of reading deficiencies, which will be addressed later, as well as strong ties to the

PAGE 28

19 standardi zed test used to quantify those deficiencies, the FCAT. In looking at Floridas standardized test, the standards that it purports to measure cannot be ignored. The Sunshine State Standards, developed by the Florida Department of Education and adopted in 19 96, identify the academic skills that the State of Florida wants its students to have attained at each grade level (Florida Department of Education, 2003c). For each grade, a series of benchmarks have been identified which, when met, move a child toward me eting the standards for that grade. Within the State of Florida, the FCAT represents the foundation of the federally mandated and state created accountability system; it purports to directly measure students progress in reading, writing, and mathematics a s outlined in the Sunshine State Standards. The reading portion of this test is administered every year to students in grades 3 10. Students receive a scaled score for each subject, and from that scaled score they are categorized as performing at one of f ive levels, with Level 1 being the lowest and Level 5 being the highest. A great deal of attention is given to the lowest two levels; at Level 1, students are considered to be having little success with the challenging content of the Sunshine State Standa rds. Students who achieve Level 2 are assumed to be having limited success with the same content. Statewide policy mandates that unless a good cause exemption can be demonstrated, all students achieving at Level 1 will be retained at the third grade l evel (The Florida Senate, 2003). These students are assumed to be struggling with learning to read such that they have not mastered the most basic skills at the most basic levels. Without these basic skills, chances of success in subsequent grades are seve rely limited, as the approach to teaching reading shifts at this critical juncture.

PAGE 29

20 Prior to and through the third grade, students are learning to read; beginning in fourth grade, students are instead expected to utilize reading skills in all areas of thei r schooling. In essence, they would be reading to learn (Just Read, Florida, 2003). According to the scores reported in 2003, almost one out of four (23%) of Floridas third grade students were reading at Level 1, indicating potential retention for the following school year of approximately 47,000 students (Florida Department of Education, 2003d). Results the following year showed only slight improvements, with 22% of students achieving Level 1 on the FCAT Reading (Florida Department of Education, 2004b ). Six guidelines, or good cause exemptions indicate those circumstances under which a student scoring Level 1 on the FCAT can still be promoted to the fourth grade. These include [a]limited English proficient (LEP) students with less than two years in an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program, [b]students with disabilities whose individual educational plan (IEP) indicated that participation in the FCAT was not appropriate, [c]demonstration of an acceptable level of performance on an alte rnate assessmentor scoring at the 51st percentile or higher on the norm referenced test portion of the FCAT, [d]demonstration of proficiency in Sunshine State Standards through a student portfolio, [e]students with disabilities who participate in the FCAT (but)still demonstrate a deficiency in reading after more than two years of intensive remediation and were previously retained in kindergarten, first, second, or third grade, and [f]students who still demonstrate a deficiency in reading after two or more years of intensive remediation and were previously retained in kindergarten, first, second, or third grade for a total of two years (Florida Department of Education,

PAGE 30

21 2003e p. 1 ). Recent T rends in Grade Retention Historically, grade retention has been v iewed in education as the exception, rather than the norm, yet has been a widespread practice despite persisting empirical evidence that it is not typically a successful intervention strategy (e.g., Jimerson, 2001; Phelps, Dowdell, Rizzo, Ehrlich, & Wilcze nski, 1992). Despite the promotion of 12,403 (6.5%) students due to good cause, a total of 28,028 (14.6%) third grade students were retained after the 2002 2003 school year due to scoring at a Level 1 on the FCAT (Florida Department of Education, 2003d). After the 2003 2004 school year, similarly large numbers of third grade students were retained (23,283; 11.0%) due to poor FCAT performance (Florida Department of Education, 2004a). By the end of the 2006 academic year, the percentage of third grade stude nts retained due to scoring at Level 1 on the FCAT Reading had decreased to 6.8% (Florida Department of Education, 2007a). While a downward trend seems to be emerging, there still have been tremendous numbers of affected children each year. In light of thi s, it is important to re examine the grade retention literature, looking past the longstanding assumptions with regards to the intents, functions, and long term outcomes of retention. The body of retention literature is extensive and spans several decades ; however, much of the earliest research is saddled with substantial methodological flaws, including a lack of comparison group (Simmons & Blyth, 1987), and an insufficient sample in terms of size and diversity (Jackson, 1975). In addition, much of the ear lier work in this area was unpublished. In an early review of 63 retention studies, only 20 had gone

PAGE 31

22 through the rigorous review of a refereed publication process (Holmes, 1989). Thus, the scientific quality of many early studies could not be monitored. Du e to these issues, this review will not attempt to be exhaustive; rather, it will focus on the most recent and relevant research to date and will provide a synthesis of the findings. This review is organized by the following categories: (a) characteristics of retained children, (b) evidence of positive outcomes of retention, (c) evidence of negative outcomes of retention, (d) factors that determine/contribute to retention outcomes, (e) effects of retention policy, (f) methodological issues to consider, and (g) future directions in retention research. Characteristics of Retained Children While low academic performance has been assumed to be the primary reason to retain a child in grade, significant differences in achievement between retained students and low achieving but promoted students have not been found, suggesting that among low achieving students, social and/or behavioral factors may influence decisions to retain (Jimerson, Carlson, Rotert, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1997). Over the years, certain factors hav e been identified that consistently characterize retained students, providing an opportunity to predict who is more likely to be retained in the future. These factors include being male, an ethnic minority, and socially immature. Additionally, having poor emotional health, maladaptive or aggressive behaviors, and reading or math problems have been found to put a child at higher risk for retention (Jimerson, 1999; Jimerson et al., 1997; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999; Reynolds, 1992) Children also are more likely to be retained if they live in po verty, change schools frequently, or have parents who are not

PAGE 32

23 involved in school, do not value education or have completed limited education themselves (McCoy & Reynolds, 1999; Reynolds, 1992) It is unclear whether these factors, particularly the demographic characteristics, are themselves decreasing the odds of academic success, or if they are serving as mediators on a n unidentified variable to put those children at a higher risk of being retained. As retained children generally lag behind their peers academically, it is assumed that one goal of retention is remediation. Therefore, children who are retained should show an improvement in academic performance following additional time in the same grade; without this improvement, it would be hard to justify such a costly method of intervention, both financially, as well as emotionally. Though outcome research has yielded m ixed results in this area, with findings generally indicating negative effects, several studies indicate that early retention can benefit the future academic careers of low achieving students. Evidence of Positive Outcomes of Retention A recent study by Mantzicopoulos (1997) serves as an example of positive outcomes resulting from retention. The 40 children included in this study were selected in the spring of their kindergarten year, based on high inattention status (as measured by teacher ratings using the Revised Problem Behaviors Checklist) from a matched group of 62 children who had participated in a previous study (Mantzicopoulos & Morrison, 1992) This larger group had been matched on demographic and academic variables including sex, age, at risk status an d reading/math achievement. Of the 40 children included in the study, 25 had been retained in kindergarten and 15 had been promoted;

PAGE 33

24 the progress of all children was followed through the second grade. Measures included the SEARCH instrument, which is compo sed of 10 subscales designed to assess spatial and temporal orientation skills deemed necessary for beginning reading, the Revised Problem Behaviors Checklist (RPBC) to measure the severity of problem behaviors, and the Total Reading and Total Math subtest s from one of two standardized achievement tests (Stanford Achievement Test or California Test of Basic Skills). Children were given the SEARCH screening during their kindergarten year and were rated with the RPBC each year. Academic achievement tests were administered near the end of each school year. Repeated measures multivariate analyses of covariance were performed for both same age and same grade comparisons. The results for the same grade comparisons indicated a significant main effect for math achi evement, favoring the retained group (F = 5.63, p <.05). In addition, the adjusted mean differences showed that retained children performed above the national mean in math while promoted children remained below the national mean in first and second grades ( M Adj = 0.25 and 0.18), respectively. No significant differences were found in reading performance. Same age comparisons yielded similar results; retained children performed significantly better than promoted children in math, while the reading performan ce of both groups showed a slight decline over time, with comparable levels at the end of second grade. The author concluded that retention was not a beneficial educational intervention due to the lack of consistent findings in reading; however, for the pu rposes of this review, the clear increase in math performance cannot be overlooked.

PAGE 34

25 Alexander, Entwisle, and Dauber (1994) offer more conclusive evidence of retention as a positive intervention tool. Though never achieving at the same level as never retain ed students, the retainees in their study showed marked improvements over time. The authors utilized a stratified random sample of 800 Baltimore children entering first grade and monitored their school progress for eight subsequent years. The design was lo ngitudinal, leading to subject groups that were too complex to be separated into distinct retained versus promoted groups based on one point of time. For instance, 127 first graders were retained in year 1 of the study. Over the next eight years, because o f erratic grade level progressions such as double retentions (49), triple retentions, (3), mid year retentions (1), mid year promotions (17), and double promotions (12), only 9 of the original 127 students who had been retained in year 1 were on grade leve l after eight years. In a similar vein, by year eight of the study, 142 children were in the seventh grade, one year behind the progression schedule that would be expected if there had been no deviations; however, only 22 were actually seventh grade repeat ers; the vast majority were a year behind because of retention(s) earlier in their school careers. This design resulted in a large amount of long term data, garnered mainly from school records (including test scores and grade reports), one on one intervie ws with the children and their parents, and self administered questionnaires by teachers. This study was unique in comparison to other recent retention research in that it did not employ any type of matched control group. As will be discussed later, an app ropriately matched comparison group is very difficult to construct and define consistently across studies, leaving the possibility that an undetermined variable could skew the results; these authors

PAGE 35

26 chose to circumvent these issues by using statistical met hods to adjust for prior performance, as well as demographic risk factors such as low socioeconomic status, low parent education, minority status, and low school readiness. The statistical adjustments allowed them to make comparisons between retainees, tho se who performed similarly but were promoted, and all remaining never retained children. In addition, the researchers compared students post retention performance to their own pre retention performance in order to examine a change in trajectory. To measu re achievement, the researchers administered two subtests from the California Achievement Test battery (reading and math) twice annually. The reading portion consists of 20 40 items (20 items in first and second grade versions, 27 items in third grade vers ion, and 40 items for all subsequent versions), while the math subtest consists of 36 45 items (36 items in first grade, 40 items in second grade, and 45 thereafter). The authors report scaled scores that have been calibrated to account for all versions of the test, allowing for meaningful interpretations across grade levels. With regard to the CAT R (reading), children who were retained at the end of first grade (n = 127) lagged significantly behind their same age, never retained peers at the beginning as well as at the end of the first grade (33.5 points lower in the fall; 59.5 points lower in the spring; p <.01), but had made up seven points in reading and four in math when compared to those same peers after the retained year ( p <.01). Gains were larger whe n comparing the children retained in first grade to younger, same grade peers 17 points higher in math ( p <.01). Unfortunately, these gains were not maintained past the first follow up (i.e., after one year of retention in first grade); these childrens sco res in later years remained similar

PAGE 36

27 to what they had been in the pre retention year. The authors noted that retention in the first grade seemed qualitatively different from retention in later grades; they were uncertain as to whether this was due to the f irst grade retention itself or because first grade retainees academic difficulties were so severe. They found that for children retained in the second and third grades, results were more positive. Second grade children were farther behind their peers at t he end of the year than the first grade retainees had been; however, after retention for one year, they had improved their standing relative to same age peers. At the time of retention, they scored an average of 52.0 points lower than their peers; after on e year of retention in second grade, they scored only 34.7 points lower ( p <.01). In addition, it appears that those gains were long term, as by the seventh year of the study they were only 24.8 points lower than never retained peers ( p <.01). This pattern o f improvement was even stronger for children retained in third grade, who lagged 28.4 points behind their same age peers at the point of retention, but only 9.7 points behind by year 7 of the study ( p <.01). The authors point out that these retainees were still lagging far behind their never retained peers, seen in the adjusted scores, but especially in the unadjusted numbers. They stated that it is crucial, however, to remember the retained childrens pre retention problems. Whatever the problem causing po or achievement, it was present before the retained year, leading these authors to conclude that the retention year actually improved a previously charted course. They hypothesized, based on early test scores, that without retention, these children would ha ve continued to fail, and that the gap between their

PAGE 37

28 scores and those of never retained children would have continued to widen. While this explanation makes conceptual sense, it lacks an empirical basis, as this study lacked the data to pinpoint specific v ariables involved in school failure, as well as detailed information regarding which aspects of retention made a positive impact on childrens academic careers. To summarize, these studies and a small number of others (Gottfredson, Fink, & Graham, 1994; P eterson, DeGracie, & Ayabe, 1987) have reported positive results to varying degrees. Unfortunately, results such as these appear to be in the minority, as past research has consistently shown retention to be an overwhelmingly negative experience for childr en. Small academic gains may be seen in certain retainees (Mantzicopoulos, 1997) especially when comparing them with younger, same grade peers (Alexander et al., 1994) ; however, these gains are apparently temporary and as these and other studies have shown, within two to three years, their achievement is equal to or lower than that of both same grade and same age regularly promoted students (Jimerson, 1999; Jimerson et al., 1997; Mantzicopoulos, 1997; Mantzicopoulos & Morrison, 1992; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999) Interestingly, studies that have f ound modest, temporary increases in performance most often find them in math; reading remains a consistent and distinct deficit in retained children (Jimerson et al., 1997; Mantzicopoulos, 1997) This fi nding is of particular relevance considering that the retention policy in the State of Florida targets reading remediation as its primary goal. It should also be noted that according to the existing literature, socio emotional and behavior deficits such as inattention, immature or aggressive behavior, low self esteem, and poor peer relationships tend to be exacerbated

PAGE 38

29 rather than improved by retention (Jimerson, 1999; Jimerson et al., 1997; Mantzicopoulos, 1997) More specifically, early grade retention has been found to increase physical aggression in boys (Nagin, Pagani, Tremblay & Vitaro, 2003). The direct effects of socio emotional/behavioral health on academic performance are not the fo cus of this review; however, issues such these are likely to have a negative overall effect on a childs school experience. Evidence of Negative Outcomes of Retention Although the present study will target only academic outcomes of retention, numerous stu dies have examined both behavioral and academic factors in retention (Ferguson et al., 2001 ; Gottfredson et al., 1994; Mantzicopoulos, 1997; Mantzicopoulos & Morrison, 1992) Pagani, Tremblay, Vitaro, Boulerice, and McDuff (2001) maintained this dual focus in their research efforts. Their 1,830 subjects were selected from a larger sample (6,397 ) of kindergarten students who had been randomly selected for a separate study and followed through age 12 (Vitaro, Desmariais Gervais, Tremblay, & Gagnon, 1992). The independent variable was grade retention (one year maximum) and the dependent variables w ere teacher ratings of childrens global academic performance as well as scores on the Social Behavior Questionnaire, which is based on teacher ratings and is comprised of items from the Preschool Behavior Questionnaire and the Prosocial Behavior Questionn aire. In order to control for differences in naturally occurring trajectories expected from children of differing achievement levels, the researchers used a statistic relatively unique to retention research, a basic autoregressive model. Testing separately for boys and girls, results indicated that grade retention negatively affected

PAGE 39

30 multiple areas of childrens development, regardless of prior characteristics. With regard to academics, for example, 10 year old boys experienced negative deviations from the expected trajectory of academic growth after being retained between the ages of 6 and 8 years (path = .12, p <.01). This negative effect was still evident at age 12. In girls as well, early grade retention had a profound and lasting negative effect on late r academic performance (measured at ages 10 and 12), as their trajectories had diverted negatively from the expected path at age 10 (path = .07, p <.01) and remained off course at age 12 (path = .07, p <.05). The authors also report negative behavioral out comes, particularly in boys, for whom a persistent and worsening of disruptive behavior was reported. They hypothesized that these behavioral outcomes and the emotional component that accompanied them could have interfered with the learning process and cou ld, therefore, have been acting upon the academic outcomes that were observed. While their hypothesis is worth further examination, the most salient information involves the authors evidence based conclusions that retention leads to long lasting negative effects. McCoy and Reynolds (1999) provided another illustration of negative retention outcomes in findings from their Chicago Longitudinal Study. This study examined school achievement of children who were graduates of a government funded kindergarten pr ogram and who were at risk for underachievement due to poverty. Participants were seventh and eighth grade students (depending on retention status) at the time of enrollment, thus eliminating the opportunity to match subjects based on pre existing achievem ent or behavior characteristics known to predict retention. Of 1,164 children, 315 had been retained in grade at least once. Students were assessed using the reading

PAGE 40

31 comprehension and mathematics subsections of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS, Level 13 or 14; ` X=145.06, SD=22.38) and hierarchical multiple regression was used to analyze the results. When comparing same age retained versus non retained children, grade retention was found to consistently predict reading and mathematics performance (R 2 = .4 7, R 2 = .57, respectively) as measured by this standardized test. Retention was significantly and negatively correlated with reading achievement scores (10.6 standard score points lower, p <.01), even after the inclusion of socio demographic factors and ear ly adjustment indicators in the analysis. The same finding was true of mathematics achievement (9.7 standard score points lower, p <.01), although fewer socio demographic characteristics were related. The authors also conducted analyses using same grade com parisons; again, retention was found to predict negative outcomes. Retained seventh grade students scored significantly lower than promoted seventh graders in reading achievement ( b = 4.6 standard score points, p <.001); they also scored lower in mathemati cs ( b = 1.3 standard score points), but the difference was not significant. The achievement gap between retained and promoted (same grade) students was found to have widened four years later, despite the stated goal of retention as decreasing the gap. The authors concluded, therefore, that retention was ineffective as an intervention and even harmful to students future academic achievement. Such unequivocal conclusions that retention outcomes have a negative impact on children are not unique; still, cau tion needs to be exercised when interpreting results, as methodological issues abound in retention research. For example, although findings from the McCoy and Reynolds (1999) provide important preliminary information, several

PAGE 41

32 limitations in the design of t heir study indicate the necessity for further corroboration. The authors used a correlational design with a low income sample, limiting the generalizability; however, it is the retrospective nature of the study that is most problematic. Enrolling subjects after the retention occurred disallowed an examination of predisposing factors, as well as examination of the trajectories of experimental and control groups. Partly as a response to these and other design issues, Jimerson et al. (1997) attempted to examin e retention effects by utilizing a prospective longitudinal design. Since matching is not typically feasible when looking at students only after retention has occurred, Jimerson et al. (1997) utilized subjects whose mothers had been participating in anothe r longitudinal study prior to the birth of their children. These children were identified prenatally as being at risk for social and emotional development problems due to maternal characteristics. They were followed through age 16 and placed into one of th ree research groups: retained once in grades K 3 (n = 29), low achieving promoted (n = 50) and control (n = 100). The children in the low achieving promoted group served as a matched comparison group, as they did not differ from the retained children in te rms of academic achievement or intellectual functioning as measured by standardized assessments (Peabody Individual Achievement Test, Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Revised, Woodcock Johnson A chievement Test Revised). Interestingly, they did display fewer maladjusted behaviors in the classroom ( p <.05) and higher levels of emotional health ( p <.01) than did retained students, based on teacher interview, the Child Behavior Checklist Teacher Form, and emotional health/self esteem measures developed by the

PAGE 42

33 authors. Short term effects were examined one year following retention; retained students did not appear to display an advantage over the comparison students in academic functioning or school adjus tment. When prior achievement levels were covaried, the retained group showed a slight advantage in math achievement ( p <.01). Students were assessed in the sixth grade as well as at 16 years of age to examine long term effects of retention. Results favored the comparison group on measures of emotional health ( p <.05), but the two groups did not differ in academic achievement. Essentially, despite an extra year of instruction, the retained students were comparable to low achieving promoted students in the sho rt term as well as years later. Though this is not as negative a conclusion as the outcomes found by other studies, neither is it supportive of retention as a positive, successful intervention for underachieving students. In an effort to extend these res ults, Jimerson (1999) followed these same students into their 21 st year of life. The students were assessed in 11 th grade and again at age 19, in an effort to answer questions regarding academic adjustment (as measured by grade point average, credits earne d, behavioral problems and attendance), dropout status, receipt of a certificate of high school completion and postsecondary education. In reference to academic adjustment in 11 th grade, the retained group of students achieved significantly lower levels as compared to both the comparison (F = 6.59, p <.01) and the control (F = 13.95, p <.001) groups. The latter two groups were not significantly different from each other. By age 19, a larger percentage of retained children had dropped out of high school as com pared to both the comparison ( ` X = 3.57, p <.05) and control groups ( ` X = 13.79, p <.001), with the comparison group having a significantly greater number of dropouts

PAGE 43

34 than the control group (F = 3.77, p <.05). By age 20, a significantly lower percentage of th e retained students had received a certificate of high school completion as compared to both the comparison ( ` X = 5.44, p <.01) and control ( ` X = 23.66, p <.001) groups. As expected, the number of retained students who eventually enrolled in postsecondary ed ucation was significantly lower than the number of control students ( ` X = 8.74, p <.01). Incidentally, as adults, retained students were less likely than were comparison students to have a full time job, be a full time student, or be involved in a combinati on of work and school (F = 4.62, p <.05). They also earned lower wages (F = 4.09, p <.05) and were rated as less competent in the workplace (F = 4.39, p <.05). Low achieving but promoted students were more comparable to the control group than to the retained group in regards to all previously described employment outcomes. Fine and Davis (2003) found similar results in their study examining the post secondary enrollment (PSE) rates of high school graduates who had been retained at some point in their school c areers. These students were labeled persisters, as they graduated from high school despite a previous retention. The sample consisted of 11,637 high school graduates who completed surveys in 1988 (base year), 1992 (graduation year), and 1994 (follow up). The surveys included questions regarding retention status, grade of retention, race/ethnicity, gender, and enrollment in post secondary education. Parent surveys included a series of questions used to determine socioeconomic status (SES; e.g., educational attainment, occupation). Holding constant demographic variables (i.e., gender, race, SES, and previous achievement), researchers conducted a logistic regression analysis to calculate the odds of a persister enrolling in PSE. Results

PAGE 44

35 demonstrated that grad e retention greatly diminished the odds of those students enrolling in a 4 year institution (.47, p <.001) or any PSE (.62, p <.001) when compared to promoted graduates. Furthermore, post secondary education enrollment odds tended to drop as the grade of ret ention increased. For example, following a retention in kindergarten through second grade, the odds of enrolling at a post secondary institution was .67 ( p <.002) when compared to promoted graduates; following a retention during sixth through eighth grades, the odds dropped to that of promoted peers, .32 ( p <.001). Like Jimerson (1999), these authors concluded that grade retention was associated with negative long term outcomes; even those who manage to graduate from high school were less likely to access the economic and social benefits of a post secondary education. The authors also recognize that the age of the data (first collection occurred in 1988, 15 years prior to publication) as well as the inclusion criteria [i.e., retained students who earned a gene ral equivalency diploma (GED) were not included in the study, although 25% of them went on to enroll in post secondary education] constituted substantial limitations to the interpretation of the results. However, it should be noted that despite these limit ations, the findings corroborated the existing body of literature examining the long term, negative outcomes of early grade retention. Factors that Influence Retention Outcomes It is reasonable to ask which factors, if any, can be used to first determine why some children experience success after a retention year, in the hopes that the information can be utilized to manipulate outcomes for all children. Ferguson, Jimerson and Dalton (2001) examined within group variables in an attempt to answer this questi on. These

PAGE 45

36 authors looked at the performance of retained (only once in grades K 2; n = 58) and promoted (n = 48) students on several school readiness (Brigance Kindergarten and First Grade Screen, Gesell School Readiness Test, Metropolitan Readiness Tests) and standardized achievement instruments (Science Research Associates Survey of Basic Skills, 2 nd and 5 th grades; Stanford Achievement Test 8 th Edition, 8 th and 11 th grades) as well as on academic performance indicators such as grade point average (GPA) a nd teacher ratings, which were administered at various points from 2 nd through 11 th grades. They defined successful retained students as those having a mean seventh grade GPA of at least 3.2 and a mean eighth grade SAT (Stanford Achievement Test) score a t the 53 rd percentile or higher. These students represented 25% of all retained students, had scored higher on early school readiness measures ( p <.05), were significantly younger ( p <.05), and were less aggressive ( p <.01) than unsuccessful retained peers. I n addition, they were from families with a higher level of maternal education; their parents also placed a higher value on education for their child. Additional literature also supports the impact of student variables; for example, males are more likely t o be retained and to experience negative outcomes after the retention year (e.g., McCoy & Reynolds, 1999). Students living in poverty and those who belong to a racial or ethnic minority group have long been known to be more likely to experience academic di fficulties, in terms of general achievement (e.g., McCoach, OConnell, & Reis, 2006) and specifically relating to retention outcomes (Fergusen et al., 2001; Jimerson et al., 1997). Such findings suggest that the outcomes of retention, positive or negative, are dependent on variables beyond just retention itself. Perhaps

PAGE 46

37 criticism that focuses solely on retention should be replaced with investigation of mediating factors that may influence outcomes. When considering factors that may mediate academic outcome s, it is helpful to broaden the discussion beyond individual student characteristics and examine ecological factors that might influence school performance. Rumberger & Palardy (2005) conducted a study investigating the potential impact of racial and socio economic segregation on high school achievement levels. They examined survey results for 14,217 students attending 913 high schools across the country. Data were collected at three time points, when students were in grades 8, 10, and 12. High SES schools ( n=151) were defined as those with an average student SES at least one standard deviation above the overall average SES; middle SES (n=641) schools had an average student SES within one standard deviation of the mean SES, and low SES schools (n=121) had an average SES at least one standard deviation below the mean SES. To account for the multi leveled data, a hierarchical linear model (HLM) was used, with test scores in reading, mathematics, science, social science, and a composite score serving as depende nt measures. A comprehensive set of independent variables measuring individual, family, and school characteristics was used, including data from students, parents, and school personnel. Overall, results demonstrated that school wide socioeconomic status, n ot racial composition of the student body, impacted achievement, a finding consistent with the body of literature on this issue (e.g., Coleman, 1990; Jencks & Mayer, 1990, Ma & Willms, 2004). Findings also indicated that while student variables accounted for nearly three

PAGE 47

38 fourths (.872) of the variability in initial achievement as measured by the composite test score, they accounted for only approximately one third (.317) of the variability in achievement growth over time, indicating that school characteri stics likely played a role in explaining the remaining variability in achievement growth. Notably, however, after controlling for school policy and practice, the effects of school SES on student learning were not significant, a finding that is particularly relevant in light of current changes to educational policy across the country. Effects of Retention Policy Familiarity with the impact of school level characteristics on student achievement is especially critical in the face of unique contextual variables created by new state, district, or local retention policies. Given the impact of recent federal legislation on educational practices, it is not surprising that after nearly a century of research examining retention as a student level variable, studies are beginning to emerge that examine retention within the larger context of policy (i.e., school, state; Hong & Raudenbush, 2005; Powell, 2005). Hong & Raudenbush expanded investigation of retention to include the policy level by considering not only the effe ct of retention on retained students, but also the average effect of a retention policy on all students, particularly on those who would be promoted under a school wide retention policy (i.e., high achievers). The researchers utilized data from the Early C hildhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten cohort (ECLS K) which was released by the US National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The data were composed of repeated measures of nationally representative kindergarten and first grade students and their families, teachers and schools (collected

PAGE 48

39 between 1998 and 2000) and included 11,843 students (471 kindergarten retainees, 10,255 promoted) in 1,080 schools with a retention policy (i.e., retention schools) and 1,117 students (all promoted) in 141 schools without a retention policy (i.e., non retention schools). Outcome variables that were examined included reading and math achievement, measured through four repeated assessments over two years and calibrated according to item response theory (IRT). Since st udent outcomes across schools are likely related to the school that one attends, which would include school, classroom, teacher, and peer variables, the authors chose to combine multilevel modeling and propensity score stratification to adjust for this sel ection bias. Results indicated that students attending retention schools were not better off in terms of reading and math when compared with students in non retention schools; within stratum, policy effects ranged from 4.00 to 4.96 in reading and from 3. 83 to 3.78 in math. Given this potential bias, a two level hierarchical linear model was constructed in which adjustments for selection bias were made. Based on the results of this analysis, the authors concluded that overall effects of a retention policy were very small (mean differences = .24 in reading, .14 in math). In additional analyses, policy effects on the subset of children who were not at risk of being retained (i.e., high achievers) were examined and no effects on these childrens learning were found. To estimate the average effects of kindergarten retention on the at risk students (i.e., low achievers) attending retention schools, another two level hierarchical linear model was constructed. Results demonstrated that if an at risk child who was promoted was instead retained, his or her reading achievement would be expected to be 9.01 ( p =.013) points lower at the end of the treatment year. For math, this

PAGE 49

40 expected score would be 5.89 ( p =.005) points lower. Another way to consider these results come s in the form of growth trajectories, which reveal that the achievement gap between the retained and promoted students widened over the treatment year from about 10 points to almost 21 points. Counterfactual growth trajectories hypothesized under this mode l predict that had the retained children instead been promoted to first grade, they would have demonstrated a growth rate similar to that of their peers and this achievement gap would have been much smaller than was actually observed. Thus, the combined re sults of this study established very small or null average school wide effects of the policy, no benefits for high achieving students, and negative effects for retained students in both reading and math. The authors concluded that kindergarten retention le ft most retainees even farther behind, and that at risk children who were promoted to the first grade had a better chance of increased growth in learning. Despite these results, the extent to which they can be generalized is questionable, as transition fro m kindergarten to first grade may be inherently different, conceptually speaking, from the transition between other grades. In addition, the basis for retention decisions in retention schools is unclear, as is the context of these school based retention po licies. Given the national sample, it is possible that the schools were spread out geographically, and the impact of a policy in a single school or district may have affected student outcomes differently than a statewide policy. Nevertheless, this study in dicated that retention research is beginning to focus on the impact of systems variables on student achievement. Another example of a systems focus is found in a preliminary study examining the academic outcomes of retention within a state mandated remedia tion program

PAGE 50

41 (Powell, 2005). Using data obtained from the Florida Department of Education, this study attempted to determine the academic achievement of low achieving students (i.e., scoring at a Level 1 on the FCAT Reading) who were either retained or pro moted through a good cause exemption. Data were analyzed for 29,317 students who scored at a Level 1 on the third grade FCAT Reading in 2003; 20,618 students were promoted and 8,699 were promoted through a good cause exemption. The following year, the reta ined students took the third grade FCAT Reading for a second time and results showed that 12,806 retained students (62%) scored at a Level 2 or higher (i.e., passing), while 7,812 (32%) retained students scored at a Level 1 again. When considering students promoted due to good cause, it is important to distinguish between the two exemptions that require an alternative demonstration of proficiency (e.g., alternative test, student portfolio) and the four exemptions (n=5,301; 61%) that allow students to be pro moted despite a lack of proficiency (e.g., previous retentions, Limited English Proficiency). Of the 3,398 (39%) students promoted through one of the exemptions demonstrating proficiency, 2,220 (65%) scored at a Level 2 or higher on the 4 th grade FCAT Read ing, while only 1,181 (35%) of those promoted through one of the nonproficient exemptions performed at the same level. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate the impact of students gender, race, socioeconomic status, and previous ac hievement on future success (i.e., Levels 2 or higher on 2004 FCAT Reading level). Results revealed that this four factor model more reliably predicted student success than did a constant only model, c 2 (6, 20001) = 4170.81 (p < .0001). More specifically the model correctly predicted 88.3% of the students achieving success, 44.6% of students not achieving

PAGE 51

42 success, and 71.7% of students overall. Results also indicated that even when controlling for previous performance (i.e., 2003 FCAT Reading score), suc cess was significantly associated with gender, race, and SES. Specifically, African American students were less likely (B = 262) than their Caucasian peers to achieve success on the FCAT Reading in 2004 (p<.0001); their odds of scoring at Level 2 or high er were only .77 times that of the odds for a Caucasian student. In addition, students of low SES were less likely (B = 266) to achieve success on the FCAT Reading, and had decreased odds (.77) of scoring at Level 2 or higher when compared to peers class ified as Not low SES. And finally, with regard to female students ( B = .122), results showed that they were more likely to achieve success than male students; the odds of a female scoring at Level 2 or higher in 2004 were 1.13 times that of the odds for a male student (p<.01). In a related study that utilized the same database, Porter (2005) examined the cluster of students scoring within 10 points in either direction of the state defined cut off score between Levels 1 and 2. The FCAT Reading is scored on a continuum between 100 and 500 points; scores of 100 258 are classified as Level 1, with 259 being the lowest score possible in Level 2. In addition to defining levels (1 5) of performance, this cut off is also significant in that students scoring 258 or below face a state mandated grade retention, while students scoring 259 or above are not subject to that outcome. Porter included two sub samples of students in his study, those who received a scaled score of 248 258 (i.e., higher achieving retained studen ts) and those who received a scaled score of 259 269 (i.e., low achieving promoted students). Test scores one year later indicated that 32% of the low achieving promoted students scored at a level 1 on the 4 th grade

PAGE 52

43 version of the FCAT Reading, while 13% o f the higher achieving retained students scored at a level 1 on the 3 rd grade FCAT Reading. Low achieving promoted students who were most likely to succeed the following year were female, Hispanic, Asian, and Caucasian. Higher achieving retained students m ost likely to succeed the following year were Hispanic and Caucasian; gender was not significantly associated with outcomes for this group. Logistic regression analyses were conducted for each group of students, with gender, race, SES and previous score on the FCAT Reading entered into the model as predictor variables. Results showed that for the low achieving promoted group, the model with predictors was significantly more effective in predicting students future success on the FCAT Reading than was a cons tant only model ( c 2 (6,9007) = 167.02, p < .01). At a .67 probability level, the model correctly predicted 59% of the students achieving success, 53% of students not achieving success, and 57% of students overall. In addition, when previous achievement was h eld constant, female students were significantly more likely than male students to achieve state standards ( B = .135, p < .01); their odds of scoring at a Level 2 or higher on the FCAT Reading in 2004 was 1.15 times that of male counterparts. African America n students were less likely ( B = .266, p < .01) to achieve state standards than their Caucasian peers, with their odds of success being .77 times that of a Caucasian student. Hispanic students were more likely to achieve state reading standards than their C aucasian peers ( B = .165, p < .01), with 1.18 times the odds of achieving success when compared with Caucasian peers. Finally, students of low SES were less likely ( B = .273, p < .01) to meet state reading standards and had decreased odds (.76) of scoring at Level 2 or higher when compared to peers classified as Not low

PAGE 53

44 SES. Results of a logistic regression analysis conducted with the higher achieving retained group suggested that the five factor model was a good fit ( c 2 (df) = 51.33, p < .01), indicating that the model with five factors was significantly more effective in predicting students achievement of state standards than a constant only model. More specifically, and at a .87 probability level, the model correctly predicted 63% of the students achieving s uccess, 52.1% of students not achieving success, and 61.6% of students overall). When controlling for previous achievement only race was significantly associated with the performance level obtained on the 2004 FCAT Reading Test. Specifically, African Amer ican students were less likely than their Caucasian peers to achieve success ( B = .594, p < .01) in 2004; their odds of scoring at Level 2 or higher were only .55 times that of the odds for a Caucasian student Though these studies (Porter, 2005; Powell, 2 005) are among the first to directly examine retention outcomes within the specific context that has been created in the State of Florida, they are not without their limitations. First, they utilize only cross sectional data, when previous research has sho wn that longitudinal outcomes of retaining students in grade are often more negative than early results tend to suggest. These studies fall prey to many of the flaws inherent in other retention studies, including retrospective sampling, lack of a control g roup, and largely correlational analyses. In addition, the analysis that was used (i.e., logistic regression) in these studies, as well as in others (e.g., Jimerson, 1999; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999) assumes independent data, which is violated in these studies due to the nesting of students within schools. As pointed out by Hong &

PAGE 54

45 Raudenbush (2005), it is likely that school level variables, including teachers, peers, curriculum, and demographics play a role in student outcomes and it is important that future st udies consider such factors. Methodological Issues to Consider The potential impact of moderating variables on retention effects is only one of many reasons to reexamine longstanding assumptions that retention is harmful to students. For example, the rete ntion literature has been characterized by various and longstanding methodological issues, which underlie the difficulties in making accurate interpretations of results. Design deficiencies include, but are not limited to, the absence of comparison groups (McCoy & Reynolds, 1999; Meisels & Liaw, 1993) a lack of consider ation of socio economic variables (Mantzicopoulos, 1997; Mantz icopoulos & Morrison, 1992) and a lack of longitudinal studies (Buntaine & Costenbader, 1997; Dennebaum & Kulberg, 1994; Mantzicopoulo s & Morrison, 1992) Studies conducted over the last decade have been markedly improved over their predecessors with regard to methodology; however, there is still considerable variability in methodological quality. For example, in the studies reviewed, t here is evidence of a lack of consistency in the composition of comparison groups, with some studies making same grade comparisons, but others making same age comparisons ( Mantzicopoulos, 1997; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999; Reynolds, 1992) There is also a lack of adequate matching in control groups (Mantzicopoulos & Morrison, 1992) and a lack of student information prior to retention (McCoy & Reynolds, 1999) The policy studies included in this review have highlight ed another important

PAGE 55

46 methodological issue that needs attention. When examining student outcomes and including students from multiple systems (e.g., classrooms, schools, districts), it is essential that varying system level effects be considered and account ed for in chosen analyses. Hong and Raudenbush (2005) handled this issue appropriately by using a two level hierarchical linear model (HLM), which allows investigators to simultaneously examine student level and school level variables. Though it would have been desirable to include classroom level variables in their study, limited data made the addition of this level impossible. Most of the studies reviewed (e.g., Jimerson, 1999; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999), and more specifically, the exploratory studies conduc ted by Powell (2005) and Porter (2005), did not address school level variables, which represents a methodological weakness. The present study, designed to function as a follow up study to the preliminary results provided by Powell (2005), will not only add ress longitudinal outcomes with a comparison group, but also will account for school level variables (e.g., existence of a Reading First program) using the statistical method of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). Future Directions in Retention Research F inally, it should be noted that all published retention studies to date have examined retention itself as intervention (Armistead, Kempton, Lynch, & Forhand, 1992; Gottfredson et al., 1994; Jimerson, 2001; Phelps et al., 1992) There is no mention of remediation efforts in conjunction with, or in lieu of, retention. An exception can be found in unpublished exploratory studies by Powell (2005) and Porter (2005); regardless, the literature published thus far has not only failed to describe remediation efforts, but

PAGE 56

47 also has neglected to examine individual components of retention in an attempt to de termine exactly which variables are associated with the negative effects. These are perhaps the most significant characteristics of the available literature and the overriding presence of such methodological limitations render the application of published findings to the present student progression plan in the State of Florida inappropriate. The State of Florida has been clear in its emphasis on remediation. That retention is part of its remediation plan has caused alarm; however, systematic efforts to addr ess academic difficulties are mandated throughout the plan. Academic Improvement Plans, or AIPs, (Florida Department of Education, 2002) were a set of formalized instructional modifications and related goals, both of which were mandated by state law and de signed to address specific skill deficits in any child who was not meeting academic benchmarks in a timely manner. The purpose of an AIP was to delineate the specific instructional and environmental variations that, when implemented as designed, were inten ded to encourage remediation of a students academic deficiencies. Examples of AIP interventions include 1) time spent with a peer tutor, 2) one to one instruction with a reading coach, and 3) extra time (30 minutes per day) devoted to reading instruction. Important features of AIPs were their provision of a direct link to previous assessment as well as their inclusion of objective, measurable goals; both considered critical for effective progress monitoring, which was required for every AIP. Children were to be reevaluated at specific intervals to determine if they were making progress toward specified goals; these goals could also be re evaluated and revised if necessary. AIPs were available to any struggling student, regardless of age or retention status, as the goal

PAGE 57

48 was to remediate problems before retention becomes necessary. If a childs reading performance was determined to be at Level 1 on the FCAT at the end of third grade and no cause for exemption was found, he was then retained; still, remediation efforts continued and likely intensified (Florida Department of Education, 2002). While state law was quite clear regarding remediation requirements, specific data verifying treatment integrity of AIPs was lacking. Nevertheless, most of the students in th is study were required to have AIPs in place following their FCAT Reading performance in 2003, thus holding negative beliefs about the efficacy of the current student progression plan in Florida is premature as research evaluating the outcomes of the plan remains limited. It should be noted that in July 2006, legislation replaced the AIP with a mandated Progress Monitoring Plan (PMP) that places greater emphasis on the use of data to monitor student performance issues relating to the integrity on PMP; howev er, similar implementation and integrity issues need to be addressed (Florida Department of Education, 2006). Regardless, conclusions about the virtues of Floridas retention policy based on past research alone may not be valid in the current educational atmosphere of reform and accountability. The State has chosen a relatively radical response to dramatic changes in federal policy. This is a time of transition, but it affords the opportunity to add to the body of literature in a meaningful way. Retention has been long considered an inadequate intervention strategy for low achieving students; the emergence of new policies and practices involving retention calls for a new generation of literature investigating this model of retention plus remediation.

PAGE 58

49 CHAPTER THREE Method Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to evaluate the longitudinal effects of third grade retention practices in the State of Florida as measured by scores on the state mandated standardized test, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test Reading (FCAT Reading). Retention as practiced in the State of Florida (i.e., within the context of a state mandated remediation program) is largely unstudied. Though exploratory data on the short term academic outcomes of third grade re tention for one cohort exist (Powell, 2005), results were somewhat mixed (i.e., 62% of retained students scored at a Level 2 or higher after the retention year, yet a full 38% failed for the second year in a row) and suggested that a longitudinal examinati on of data is warranted. This study extended those preliminary findings by examining retained students performance in fifth grade (i.e., three years post retention) and comparing their performance to the fifth grade performance of low achieving third grad e students who were promoted to the fourth grade in 2003 through good cause exemptions. This study also examined the relationship between future performance (i.e., three years following retention) on the FCAT Reading and various student variables (i.e., ge nder, race/ethnicity, SES, and retention status) and school characteristics (i.e., Reading First status, school size, school socioeconomic

PAGE 59

50 status). Sample The initial sample for this study included all students whose reading proficiency was classified as Level 1 (a scaled score between 100 and 258) on the 2003 FCAT Reading and who, in 2003, were either retained in the third grade or promoted to the fourth grade due to a good cause exemption (N = 34,671). These students were all nested within their respecti ve schools, thus the schools themselves were also included in the sample (N = 1,910). From this sample, student and school level exclusion criteria were created. Students who attended a lab school, attended school at home, or had been retained multiple ti mes were excluded. Students who met the inclusion criteria for this study but who had missing data for any of the variables of interest (e.g., gender, race, SES) were excluded. Schools with less than 20 students in the sample (i.e., less than 20 students s coring at Level 1) were excluded. The retained students included in this study were those who failed to demonstrate reading achievement thought to be necessary in order for them to experience success in the fourth grade. Consequently, those students compl eted the third grade curriculum for a second time during the 2003 2004 school year, this time according to an individualized intervention plan, at that time referred to as an Academic Improvement Plan (AIP). The students who were promoted due to a good cau se exemption, despite scoring at Level 1 on the 2003 FCAT Reading, may have experienced a regular fourth grade curriculum, depending on their eligibility for an AIP based on lowered performance, during the 2003 2004 school year.

PAGE 60

51 The final sample included 17,087 students in 796 schools, including 12,685 students in 793 schools who were retained and 4,402 students in 710 schools who were promoted through good cause exemptions. The school sample (n = 796) included schools in all 67 Florida public school dist ricts, and of these, 189 (n = 3,624) were classified as Reading First schools and 607 (n = 13,453) were not classified as Reading First schools. To examine the impact of retention more closely, each student was coded on several characteristics, including race, gender and socioeconomic status. Race distinctions included Caucasian, African American, Asian Pacific Islander, Hispanic and Alaskan Native/Native American. Socioeconomic status (SES) was categorized by each students eligibility for Free and Reduce d Lunch (FRL), as determined by the income parameters set by the State of Florida. In addition, schools were coded on size (i.e., student population) and socioeconomic status (i.e., proportion of students eligible for FRL), as well as Reading First status, which refers to whether a school received federal funds to assist in the implementation of empirically based reading programs. Measures Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. As it is a dominant factor in the State of Floridas policy relating to the eva luation of the academic progression of its students, this study utilized scores from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test Reading (FCAT Reading) in order to examine the effectiveness of retention on low achieving third grade students. According to t he Florida Department of Education (2003), the FCAT is a standardized, criterion referenced test developed by a panel of curriculum specialists. Its intent is to assess student achievement of the higher order cognitive skills

PAGE 61

52 represented in the Sunshine St ate Standards (SSS). The FCAT Reading test reports scores in four areas including: (1) main idea, plot and purpose; (2) words and phrases in context; (3) comparisons of cause/effect; and (4) reference and research. Included in the FCAT are literary passage s, and informational passages. Another portion of the FCAT reading section is used normatively, comparing the students of Florida with the rest of the nation. The FCAT contains both multiple choice and performance questions; the multiple choice questions a re scored by computer, while the performance tasks are hand scored. During the months of February and March of each year, the FCAT is administered to over 1.5 million students across the state. The completed tests are then sealed and sent to the Florida De partment of Education. Scoring of the FCAT is based on item response theory (IRT, Lord & Novick, 1968). IRT theory assumes that student responses to individual questions are directly related to underlying achievement in a given content area. Cronbachs rel iability coefficient estimates of scores from the fourth grade reading portion of the FCAT were reported by total score ( a = .88 ), literary text ( a = .79 ) and informational text ( a = .79 ) (Florida Department of Education, 2002b). Five levels have been def ined for the FCAT reading achievement test, based on scaled scores ranging from 100 to 500. Level 1 represents the lowest level of reading achievement; each subsequent level represents an increasing level of reading proficiency. In 2003, the five levels we re defined according to the following scaled scores: Level 1: 100 258, Level 2: 259 283, Level 3: 284 331, Level 4: 332 393, and Level 5: 394 500. In reading, it is assumed that a student who achieves a scaled score categorized as Level 1 is

PAGE 62

53 experiencing l ittle success with the content of the Sunshine State Standards, while students achieving a scaled score in the Level 2 category are assumed to be experiencing limited success with the same content. In comparison, students achieving scores in the range of L evels 3, 4, or 5 are considered proficient readers, to varying degrees (Florida Department of Education, 2003c). Procedures and Data Preparation Upon the approval of the Institutional Review Board, the principal investigator obtained the following data fr om the Florida Department of Education on students who scored Level 1 on the 2003 FCAT Reading: retention status, reading scores, reading levels, race, gender, socioeconomic status, good cause promotion status and type, and school attended at the time of e xamination. This data collection procedure was repeated with the data resulting from the 2005 and 2006 FCAT Reading administrations to examine the FCAT scores of the students who were either retained in third grade in 2003 or promoted due to a good cause e xemption. A second database consisting of school level data (i.e., school SES and school size) from the intervention year (2003 2004) was collected using the published school indicators from the Florida Department of Education website (Florida Department o f Education, 2007b). A third database consisting of schools classified as Reading First schools for the 2003 2004 school year was also obtained from the same source. The resultant three databases (i.e., student level variables, school size and school SES, and Reading First status) were merged using a data merging procedure in the SAS 9.1 software. The data were then screened and students who did not meet established criteria, who were retained two or more times, or who had missing data on

PAGE 63

54 variables of inter est, were excluded. In addition, students in schools having less than 20 students in the sample were excluded. Data Analysis Descriptive analyses of the data were computed on all the variables of interest and the results describe the participant pool in t erms of gender, race, and SES To answer each research question, data were subjected to statistical analyses, as described below. Research Question 1: For Florida students who scored at Level 1 on the 3 rd grade FCAT Reading in 2003 and were retained in thi rd grade during the 2003 2004 school year what proportion scored at Level 2 or higher on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006? For students who scored Level 1 and were retained in 2003, the number and percent who then scored Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 or higher on the fifth grade FCAT Reading in 2006 were computed Research Question 2: For Florida students who scored at Level 1 on the 3 rd grade FCAT Reading in 2003, but were promoted to the fourth grade for the 2003 2004 school year through one of six g ood cause exemptions, what proportion for each exemption scored at Level 2 or higher on the fifth grade FCAT Reading in 2005, and the sixth grade FCAT Reading in 2006? For students who scored Level 1 in 2003 but were promoted due to good cause exemptions, the number and percent of students who then scored Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 or higher on the sixth grade FCAT in 2006 were computed for each of the six exemptions. Research Question 3: To what extent do differences in performance on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading exist between students who scored at Level 1 in 2003 and were

PAGE 64

55 retained in third grade during 2003 2004 and those who scored at Level 1 in 2003 but were promoted through one of the two good cause exemptions requiring a demonstration of proficiency? Research Question 4: To what extent are observed differences on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading between students who were retained in 2003 and students who were promoted in 2003 through a good cause exemption indicating proficiency moderated by the following student characteristics: gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status? Research Question 5: To what extent are observed differences in performance on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading between students who were retained in 2003 and students who were promoted in 2003 through a good cause exemption indicating proficiency moderated by the following school characteristics: Reading First status, school size, schoolwide student socioeconomic status? To answer research questions 3, 4, & 5, data for students who scor ed Level 1 in 2003 were subjected to hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in order to test for school level effects on the student level predictors of 5 th grade achievement. HLM is a specialized regression technique that was developed to address issues speci fic to nested or multi level datasets (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). This analysis allowed comparisons to be made between the performance of retained and promoted students, based on individual FCAT Reading scores, while accounting for the fact that students ar e nested within schools. Because students are grouped within schools, it is likely that student performance is systematically related to that of other students in the same school. Given the non independent nature of the data, utilizing a traditional regres sion approach could lead to biased regression coefficients and smaller than

PAGE 65

56 expected estimates of standard error. This would lead to a higher risk making a Type I error, i.e., identifying a statistically significant relationship between variables (e.g., st udent race/ethnicity and performance on the FCAT Reading) when none exists. The procedures underlying HLM correct for this possibility by conducting separate regressions for each school using the students as the unit of analysis. The resulting coefficients are then employed as dependent measures for the subsequent analyses in which the school is the unit of analysis. This process allows for consideration of the potential influence of level 2 variables (i.e., school size, school SES, Reading First status) on level 1 variables (i.e., student gender, race/ethnicity, SES), as well as on the outcome variable of interest (i.e., 5 th grade FCAT Reading score). HLM Data Preparation Subsequent to the descriptive analyses outlined earlier, a subset of the final sampl e was created for analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. The dependent variable, scaled scores on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading, was created using scores from the appropriate administration (i.e., 2006 administration for retained students, 2005 administ ration for students promoted through good cause). Only those students promoted through one of two good cause exemptions indicating proficiency were included in these analyses; students promoted through the remaining four good cause exemptions not indicatin g proficiency were excluded. Finally, data were screened again using additional variables of interest (i.e., school SES, school size, Reading First status, 5 th grade FCAT Reading score) to exclude students with missing data. As was mentioned earlier, the dependent variable was scaled scores on the 5 th grade version of the FCAT Reading, which was administered to retained and promoted

PAGE 66

57 students in different years (i.e., retained students in 2006, promoted students in 2005). Student level predictor variables i ncluded retention status, gender, race, and SES, while school level predictors included school size, school SES, and Reading First status. Both Level 1 predictor variables (i.e., retention status, gender, race, and SES) and one Level 2 predictor variable ( i.e., Reading First) were dummy coded, as is shown in Table 1. Table 1 Dummy Coding for Student and School Variables Variable Definition Dummy code Retention status (ret) Whether a student was retained or promoted through good cause in 2003 0 = retained 1 = promoted through good cause Gender (gen) Student gender 0 = Female 1 = Male Race (race) Student race 0 = Caucasian 1 = Not Caucasian SES (ses) Student eligibility for Free or Reduced Lunch (FRL) 0 = Not low SES 1 = Low SES Reading First status (RF ) Whether a school received funds to implement empirically based reading programs in 2003 2004 0 = Not Reading First 1 = Reading First Centering procedure School SES (sses) Continuous variable indicating the proportion of students within a school q ualifying for FRL Grand mean centered School size (ssize) Continuous variable indicating school enrollment in 2003 2004 Grand mean centered Gender and student SES are dichotomous variables, which were dummy coded (see Table 1). Gender was coded 0 = fema le and 1 = male for gender. The proxy used for SES was eligibility for Free/Reduced Lunch, coded 0 = no and 1 = yes. The variable of race had five categories (i.e., Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, Asian, Other), and

PAGE 67

58 was dummy coded such that 0 = Cau casian and 1 = all other races. The remaining Level 2 predictor variables (i.e., school size and school SES) were continuous variables. The means of the overall sample for each variable, or the grand means, were centered at zero. Centering the predictor v ariables of school SES and school size is an important procedure to ensure meaningful later interpretation of the model, as the intercept is interpreted as the estimated FCAT Reading score when all coefficients are set to zero. The meaning of zero is clear in the case of variables that are dummy coded (e.g., female, retained, Caucasian); however, without centering, a school size of zero is not possible. Rescaling the continuous variables of school SES and school size such that their actual grand means are e qual to zero enables a more meaningful explanation of the results. A total of 14,593 students and 792 schools were included in the final subset used in the HLM analyses. The mean student FCAT Reading score was 261.08 (SD = 49.60). Mean values of retentio n status (M = .15; SD = .36), as well as student gender (M = .57; SD = .49), race (M = .78; SD = .42), and SES (M = .85; SD = .36) were computed. Analyses were conducted using the intervention year (i.e., 2003 2004), or the academic year directly following the retention decision. School size was defined as the number of enrolled students, school SES was defined as the proportion of students within a school eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch, and Reading First status was determined using the published list o f 322 schools that received this identification for the 2003 2004 academic year. Overall, 792 schools in 67 Florida school districts were included in the final subset. Of these, 189 schools were classified as Reading First schools, while 603 were

PAGE 68

59 considere d non Reading First. The number of students in each type of school was 3,180 and 11,413, respectively. The mean school size, prior to grand mean centering was 808.78 (SD = 272.22), with enrollment ranging from 20 to 2,328 students. The mean school SES (i.e ., average schoolwide proportion of low SES students across all schools) prior to grand mean centering was .72 low SES (SD = .2028) Though it is often recommended to rely on a statistical power analysis to determine an appropriate sample size for the num ber of units at each level (Raudenbush & Liu, 2000), because of the extremely large sample size created by including all Florida students scoring at Level 1 on the FCAT Reading, such an analysis was deemed unnecessary in this study. HLM Models For the HLM analysis, five distinct models, beginning with a model were developed, beginning with the unconditional model, which included no predictors. Model 1: The equation for the unconditional model is Y ij = ? 00 + 0 j + r i j where Y ij is the student level outcome or 5 th grade FCAT Reading score, ? 00 is the fixed effect, or the overall intercept, 0 j is the random effect of the school and r i j is the random effect of within school variability. This model enabled the calculation of the intraclass correlation coe fficient (ICC), which indicates the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that is attributable to

PAGE 69

60 between school factors. Because the ICC was significant, it was determined that the extent of the nesting was such that an HLM was warranted. Mode l 2: This model was built to include all student level variables (i.e., Level 1 predictors ), which were added to the unconditional model. T he resultant equation is Y ij = ? 00 + ? 01 *retstat + ? 02 *gender + ? 03 *race + ? 04 *SES + 0 j + 1 *gender + 2 *race + r i j where Y ij is the student level outcome, or 5 th grade FCAT Reading score, ? 00 is the fixed effect, or the overall intercept, ? 01 retstat is the fixed effect of rete ntion status, ? 02 gender is the fixed effect of gender, ? 03 race is the fixed effect of race, ? 04 SES is the fixed effect of SES, 0 j is the random effect of the school, 1 gender is the random effect of gender, 2 race is the random effect of race, and r i j is the random effect of within school variability. Each student level predictor ( student retention status, gender, race, and SES ) was entered as a fixed effect. In addition, based on theory, student variables were allowed to covary in this model, meani ng that the effects of student retention status, gender, race, and SES may vary across schools. The purpose of the HLM Level 1 model was to examine the effect of student related factors on the dependent (outcome) measure of 5 th grade reading

PAGE 70

61 performance as measured by the FCAT. Model 3: Next, both Level 1 predictors (i.e., student level variables) and Level 2 predictors (school level variables) were added to the model to yield Model 3. The equation is expressed as follows: Y ij = ? 00 + ? 01 *retstat + ? 02 *gender + ? 03 *race + ? 04 *SES + ? 05 *schoolses + ? 06 *schoolpop + ? 07 *readingfirst + 0 j + 1 j *gender + 2 j *race +r i where Y ij is the student level outcome, or 5 th grade FCAT Reading score, ? 00 is the fixed effect, or the overall intercept, ? 01 retstat is the fixed effect of retention status, ? 02 gender is the fixed effect of gender, ? 03 race is the fixed effect of race, ? 04 SES is the fixed effect of SES, ? 05 schoolses is the fixed effect of school SES, ? 06 schoolpop is the fixed effect of school size, ? 0 7 readingfirst is the fixed effect of Reading First status, 0 j is the random effect of the school, 1 gender is the random effect of gender, 2 race is the random effect of race, and r i j is the random effect of within school variability. All student and school level predictors were entered as fixed effects, and student level predictors were allowed to covary. The purpose of the Model 3 was to examine the effect

PAGE 71

62 of the student and school level variables (as fixed effects only) on 5 th grade reading perform ance. Model 4: Next, a full model that included the Level 1 and Level 2 predictor variables as fixed effects as well as all possible interactions between Level 1 and Level 2 predictor variables was created The purpose of this expanded HLM Level 2 model was to examine the effects of the student and school level variables as well as possible interactions of these variables on the outcome measure. Model fit was assessed using the AIC fit index. Model 5: This final model was built based on examinatio n of the expanded Model 4 and elimination, as appropriate, of the interaction effects that were non significant. In order to assess the extent to which each of these models were accounting for explained variability between students and between schools, p seudo R 2 values were calculated for each model relative to the variability between students (within school variance) and between schools in the unconditional model (Model 1). The following equations were used to compute the within school variance Psuedo 2 1 od 22 2 Unconditiona l M el Unconditional R ss s = and the between school variance Psuedo 2 2 0 0 00 00 Unconditiona l Model Unconditional R tt t = The pseudo R 2 indicates the proportion of explainable variance that a particular model explains, and uses the unconditional model as a comparison. Model fit was assessed for

PAGE 72

63 each model using Akaikes Information Criterion (AIC, Akaike, 1974). Estimation procedures utilizing Empirical Bayes estimates was employed at each level of the model to ensure the data were normally distributed with sufficiently equal va riance. An outlier was identified; however, removal of the outlier did not substantially change the parameter estimates of the predictors, so was not permanently removed from the dataset. The alpha significance level for all analyses was established at .05

PAGE 73

64 CHAPTER FOUR Results As was stated previously, this study was intended to examine the reading performance of students, considering the effects of retention in third grade as well as student demographic characteristics (gender, SES, race/ethnicity) a nd school variables (school size, Reading First status, and school wide SES) In addition, the future performances of low performing students who were promoted to the fourth grade through good cause exemptions were examined. This chapter begins with a des cription of the sample and results of descriptive analyses for the first two research questions. Then, the sub sample used for research questions 3 5 which employed hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to examine student and school level factors associated with student performance in reading subsequent to the retention year is described, and the results of the analyses relating to those questions are reported. The data were analyzed using SAS Version 9.1. An alpha level of .05 was employed for all statistica l tests. Description of Sample The final sample for this study consisted of 17,087 students in 796 schools who scored at Level 1 on the 2003 third grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test Reading (FCAT Reading) and were either retained in the third grad e or promoted to fourth grade through a good cause exemption for the 2003 2004 academic year. Race and

PAGE 74

65 socioeconomic status were defined in this study according to the data made available by the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE). The FLDOE defines ra ce using six categories (Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and Mixed Race); however, the categories of Asian, Native American and Mixed Race were collapsed in this study due to small sample sizes and are included in the categor y labeled Other. Florida defines SES by a students eligibility status for receiving lunch at free or reduced prices; therefore, in this study, students who were eligible to receive free or reduced lunch (FRL) were coded as Low SES and those who were n ot eligible were coded as Not low SES. A breakdown of the final sample in terms of retention/promotion status at the end of third grade in 2003 is reported in Table 2.

PAGE 75

66 Table 2 Students Scoring Level 1 on the 2003 FCAT Reading and Retention/Promotion St atus by Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and SES 2003 FCAT Reading Level 1 n % Retained in Third Grade n % Promoted due to Good Cause Exemption n % Race/Ethnicity Caucasian 4002 23 2767 22 1235 28 African American 6628 39 5268 42 1360 31 Hispanic 6008 35 4339 34 1669 38 Other 449 3 311 2 138 3 Gender Male 9909 58 7353 58 2556 58 Female 7178 42 5332 42 1846 42 SES Low 14487 85 10877 86 3610 82 Not low 2600 15 1808 1 4 792 18 Total 17087 12685 74 4402 26 Research Questions Question 1. For Florida students who scored at Level 1 on the 3 rd grade FCAT Reading in 2003 and were retained in third grade during the 2003 2004 school year, what proportion scored at Level 2 or higher on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006? The number and percent of 2003 third grade retainees performing at Levels 1 5 on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006 were computed. After examination of the data, Levels 3, 4, and 5 were collapsed due to small cell sizes. It should be noted that students performing at Levels 3 through 5 are considered to be proficient readers by the FLDOE,

PAGE 76

67 while students performing at Levels 1 and 2 are experiencing little and limited success with the Sunshine State Standards, respectively. The resultant performance levels for retained students are reported in Table 3. As is shown, 60% (n = 7,687 ) of the third grade retainees who took the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006 scored at Level 2 or higher. More specifica lly, 28% (n = 3,571 ) of the retained stude nts scored at Level 2, while 32 % (n = 4,116 ) scored in the range of proficiency, or Levels 3 5. Forty percent (n = 4,995 ) of the retained students scored at Level 1. Table 3 Performance of Retained Students on t he 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006 by Level Reading Level Number Percent 1 4995 40 2 3571 28 3 5 4116 32 Total 12685 100 Question 2. For Florida students who scored at Level 1 on the 3 rd grade FCAT Reading in 2003, but were promoted to the fourth grade for the 2003 2004 school year through one of six good cause exemptions, what proportion for each exemption scored at Level 2 or higher on the fifth grade FCAT Reading in 2005, and the sixth grade FCAT Reading in 2006? Altogether, 26 % (n = 4,402 ) of the third grade students who scored at Level 1 on

PAGE 77

68 the 2003 FCAT Reading were promoted to the fourth grade due to a good cause exemption. Table 4 displays a breakdown of this group of students by type of exemption. Table 4 Number and Perce nt of Students Promoted to 4 th Grade due to Good Cause Exemption by Type of Exemption Exemptions N % 1. Proficiency demonstrated through alternative standardized reading assessment 1157 26 2. Proficiency demonstrated through student portfolio 652 15 3. Limited English Proficient (LEP) 1059 24 4. Did not participate due to Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) 46 1 5. Previous retention (1 year) + IEP 1268 29 6. Previous retentions (2 years) 220 5 Total 4402 100 Performance on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading Student performance on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading test in 2005 for third grade students who scored at Level 1 in 2003 but who were promoted to fourth grade for 2003 04 through a good cause exemption were examined by computing the number and percent of students who scored at each

PAGE 78

69 reading level. After examination of the data, Levels 3, 4, and 5 were collapsed due to small cell sizes. The resultant performance levels are reported in Table 5. As is shown, of the 4,402 third grade students promoted through a good cause exemption in 2003 who went on to take the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2005, 41 % (n = 1,805 ) scored at Level 2 or higher. More specifically, 22 % (n = 958 ) of the promoted students scored at Level 2, while 19 % (n = 847 ) scored at Levels 3 5. Fifty nine percent (n = 2,697 ) of the promoted students scored at Level 1. Thus, nearly two thirds of students continued to struggle with grade level content after being promoted through good cause exemptions after third grade. A more detailed look at the performance of students promoted through good cause by type of exemption is provided in Table 6. Table 5 Performance of Students Promoted through Good Cause on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2005 by Level Reading Level Number Percent 1 2697 59 2 958 22 3 5 847 19 Total 4402 100

PAGE 79

70 Table 6 Level 1 Promoted Students Performance on the 2005 5 th grade FCAT Reading by Good Cause Exemption Type of Exemption Level 1 n % Level 2 n % Levels 3 5 n % 1. Proficiency demonstrated through alternative standardized reading assessment 403 35 376 32 378 33 2. Proficiency demonstrated through student portfolio 296 45 206 3 2 150 2 3 3. L imited English Proficient (LEP) 623 59 207 20 229 21 4. Did not participate due to Individual Education Plan (IEP) 40 87 4 9 2 4 5. Previous retention (1 year) + IEP 1063 84 130 10 75 6 6. Previous retentions (2 yea rs) 172 78 35 16 13 6 Total 2597 59 958 22 847 19 Looking more closely at only the group of students (n = 1,809) who demonstrated proficiency through an alternative standardized reading assessment (Exemption 1) or through student portfolio (Exemption 2), the data reveal a different pattern of performance than that of students who did not take the FCAT Reading due to an

PAGE 80

71 Individual Education Plan (IEP), or who were promoted due to previous retentions (Exemptions 4 6). Specifically, the percentages scoring at Level 2 or Levels 3 5 on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2005 were quite high for those who were promoted due to Exemption 1 ( 65 %, n = 774 ) and Exemption 2 ( 55 %, n = 356 ) when examining this smaller subset of students. In contras t, fewer students (4 16%) promoted due to Exemptions 4 6 scored at Level 2 or Levels 3 5 in 2005. In addition, 2005 data for students promoted due to Limited English Proficiency with less than two years of English as a Second Language (ESOL) instruction (E xemption 3) indicate a trend similar to that for students who demonstrated proficiency during the 2002 2003 school year. Specifically, almost half, or 41 % (n = 436 ) of LEP students taking the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2005 scored at Level 2 or higher. Perf ormance on the 6 th grade FCAT Reading Student performance on the 6 th grade FCAT Reading test in 2006 for third grade students who scored at Level 1 in 2003 but who were promoted to fourth grade for 2003 04 through a good cause exemption were examined by c omputing the number and percent of students who scored at each reading level. After examination of the data, Levels 3, 4, and 5 were collapsed due to small cell sizes. The resultant performance levels are reported in Table 7. As is shown, of the 4,402 thir d grade students promoted through a good cause exemption who went on to take the 6 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006, 44 % (n = 1,942 ) scored at Level 2 or higher. More specifically, 23 % (n = 1,028 ) of the promoted students scored at Level 2, while 21 % (n = 914 ) scored at Levels 3 5. Fifty six percent (n = 2,460 ) of the promoted students scored at Level 1. Table 8 displays performance by type of exemption.

PAGE 81

72 Table 7 Performance of Students Promoted through Good Cause on the 6 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006 by Level Reading Level Number Percent 1 2460 56 2 1028 23 3 5 914 21 Total 4402 100

PAGE 82

73 Table 8 Level 1 Promoted Students Performance on the 2006 6 th grade FCAT Reading by Good Cause Exemption Type of Exemption Level 1 n % Level 2 n % Levels 3 5 n % 1. Proficiency demonstrated through alternative standardized reading assessment 377 33 408 35 372 32 2. Proficiency demonstrated through student portfolio 277 42 221 3 4 154 2 4 3. Limited English Proficient (LEP) 536 51 222 21 301 28 4. Did not participate due to Individual Education Plan (IEP) 40 87 4 9 2 4 5. Previous retention (1 year) + IEP 1052 83 148 12 68 5 6. Pre vious retentions (2 years) 178 81 25 11 17 8 Total 2460 56 1028 23 914 21 Looking more closely at only the group of students (n = 1,809) who demonstrated proficiency in 2003 through an alternative standardized reading assessm ent (Exemption 1) or through student portfolio (Exemption 2), the data reveal a different pattern of performance than that for students who did not take the FCAT Reading due to an

PAGE 83

74 Individual Education Plan (IEP), or who were promoted due to previous retent ions (Exemptions 4 6). Specifically, the percentages of students scoring at Level 2 or Levels 3 5 on the 6 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006 were quite high for those who were promoted due to Exemption 1 ( 67 %, n = 780 ) and Exemption 2 ( 58 %, n = 375 ) when examin ing this smaller subset of students. In contrast, fewer students (4% 12%) promoted due to Exemptions 4 6 scored at Level 2 or Levels 3 5 in 2006. In addition, 2006 data for students promoted due to Limited English Proficiency with less than two years of En glish as a Second Language (ESOL) instruction (Exemption 3) indicate a trend similar to that for students who demonstrated proficiency during the 2002 2003 school year. Specifically, almost half, or 49 % (n = 523 ) of LEP students taking the 6 th grade FCAT R eading in 2006 scored at Level 2 or higher. Question 3. To what extent do differences in performance on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading exist between students who scored at Level 1 in 2003 and were retained in third grade during 2003 2004 and those who scored at Level 1 in 2003 but were promoted through one of the two good cause exemptions requiring a demonstration of proficiency? Question 4. To what extent are observed differences on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading between students who were retained in 2003 and st udents who were promoted in 2003 through a good cause exemption indicating proficiency moderated by the following student characteristics: gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status? Question 5. To what extent are observed differences in performance on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading between students who were retained in 2003 and students who were

PAGE 84

75 promoted in 2003 through a good cause exemption indicating proficiency moderated by the following school characteristics: Reading First status, school size, sch oolwide student socioeconomic status? To answer these questions, data were analyzed at both the student and school levels using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). Data collection and screening procedures were described earlier. The subset included Level 1 students who were retained in third grade in 2003, as well as Level 1 students who were promoted through a good cause exemption indicating proficiency (N = 14,593) Schools with at least 20 students in the final subset were included, resulting in a total of 792 schools in all 67 Florida school districts. Of these, 189 schools with a total of 3,180 students were classified as Reading First, while 603 schools with 11,413 students were classified as non Reading First. The mean school size was 808.78 (SD = 27 2.22, range = 20 2,328), and the mean school SES (i.e., average schoolwide proportion of low SES students across all schools) was .72 low SES (SD = .2028) Prior to subjecting the data to a hierarchical linear model (HLM), data were screened to test for violations of assumptions (i.e., normality, collinearity, homoscedacity). Each student level variable was examined separately, and results indicated that the variables of retention status and SES were both skewed, or non normal, likely due to the sample of low achieving students. These variable distributions were also leptokurtic, with positive kurtosis values (1.78 and 1.74, respectively). The variables of gender and race were less skewed, meaning that the distributions were closer to normal. The s chool le vel variables of Reading First and SES were also examined individually for

PAGE 85

76 normality, and both appeared to approach normality. School size was extremely leptokurtic, with a kurtosis value of 4.66. Descriptive statistics of student and school level variable s included in the HLM (prior to grand mean centering) including means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis, appear in Table 9. Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations for Student and School Level Variables Variable M SD Skewness Kurtosis St udent level ( N = 14,593) FCAT Reading 261.08 49.60 0.91 1.43 Retention status .15 .36 1.94 1.78 Gender .57 .49 0.30 1.91 Race .7 8 .4 2 1.34 0.19 Student SES .85 .3 6 1.93 1.74 School level ( N = 792 ) FCAT Reading 261.01 16.34 0.91 1 .43 School SES 2003 2004 (proportion of students qualifying for FRL) .7199 .2028 0.60 0.40 School size 2003 2004 808.78 272.22 1.33 4.66 Reading First status .24 .41 1.37 0.13 Note : Retention status coded 0 for retained and 1 for good cause prom oted; gender is coded 0 for female and 1 for male; race is coded 0 for Caucasian and 1 for all other races; student SES is coded 0 if not eligible for free or reduced lunch and 1 if eligible; School SES is the grand mean centered proportion of students in the study at a school that are eligible for free or reduced lunch; schoolpop is the grand mean centered variable for school population; Reading First is coded 0 for a control school and 1 for a program school; level 1 sample size equals 14,5 9 3; level 2 sam ple size equals 792.

PAGE 86

77 Student and school level variables as well as the outcome variable, FCAT Reading scores, were examined through separate series of bivariate correlations to determine the extent of any existing multicollinearity. Although most rela tionships among student level variables were significant, they were also relatively weak, with the relationship between race and SES demonstrating the strongest relationship ( r = .34, p < .0001). With regard to the school level variables, all relationships were significant, with only the relationship between school SES and school size demonstrating a moderate level of strength ( r = .40, p < .0001). Because of the relative weakness of the relationships between both the student and school level variables the decision was made that each of these variables was an appropriate predictor variable for these models. The results of all bivariate correlations are displayed in Table 10.

PAGE 87

78 Table 10 Pearson Product Moment Correlations for Student and School Level Variab les Level 1 (N = 14,593) FCAT Reading Retention status Gender Race SES FCAT Reading 1.00 Retention status 0.03 ** 1.00 Gender 0.11 *** 0.03 ** 1.00 Race 0.02 0.04 ** 0.02 ** 1.00 SES 0.05 *** 0.09 ** 0.03 ** 0.34 * 1.00 Level 2 (J = 792) School SES School size Reading First status School SES 1.00 School size 0.40 *** 1.00 Reading First status 0.15 *** 0.17 *** 1.00 p < .001, ** p < .001, *** p < .0001. Unconditional model. To first estimate the proportion of variation in 5 th grade FCAT Reading scores within and between schools, data were subjected to an unconditional means model Y ij = ? 00 + 0 j + r i j The unconditional model in HLM can be viewed as a one way ANOVA with random effec ts, in that no predictor or moderator variables are included in the analysis. Rather, the model has one fixed effect (i.e., the overall mean of FCAT Reading scores (? 00 ) and two variance components [i.e., variation between school means ( 0 j ) and variation among students within schools ( r i j )]. This model served to partition the variance in FCAT Reading scores into its within and between school components. In other words, it provided an estimation of the amount of variance that is attributed to student and school

PAGE 88

79 level variables, or a level of dependence of the data on group effects. Results from this model showed that FCAT Reading (5 th grade) = 261.09 + 102.52 *between school variance + ( 2357.11 *within school variance). The average school level FCAT Reading score was 261.09 [t = 470.80 p < .0001] in this sample of schools. The intra class correlation coefficient (ICC; r = .04) was calculated and indicated that while the total proportion of variance in FCAT Reading scores that wa s be tween schools (about 4%) was very small relative to within school variance, differences among schools in their mean outcomes were significant [Z = 8.64 p < .0001]. As fit indices were used later to guide selection among alternative models, it is of note t hat the Akaikes Information Criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1974) for the unconditional model was 155181.3. Given the significant variation of FCAT Reading scores between schools, the HLM procedure, which accounts for these between school differences, was warran ted. Thus, student variables (viz., retention status, gender, race and SES) and school level variables (viz., school SES, school size, Reading First status) were entered into the model as predictor variables, first separately (i.e., Level 1 model, Level 2 model), then together (i.e., Full model, Full model with interactions) (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Results of the models in terms of fixed and random effects, variance components and pseudo R 2 are reported in Table 11.

PAGE 89

80 Table 11 HLM Means as Outcomes Models : Selected School Characteristics as Predictors of Variation Between Schools in Performance on 5 th Grade FCAT Reading Model 1 Unconditional Model Model 2 Level 1 Model Model 3 Full Model Model 5 Full Model + 1 interaction Fixed effect PE SE t PE SE t PE SE t PE SE t Intercept 261.09 .55 470.80 *** 273.28 1.34 203.28 *** 272.99 1.44 190.06 *** 273.87 1.44 189.30 *** ret 3.43 1.16 2.95 ** 3.12 1.16 2.69 ** 2.62 1.68 1.56 gender 11.39 .85 13.39 *** 11.33 .85 13.27 *** 12.99 0.92 14.06 *** race 1.60 1.10 1.45 1.80 1.13 1.60 1.78 1.13 1.58 ses 5.86 1.23 4.78 *** 4.78 1.25 3.82 ** 4.72 1.25 3.77 ** sses 0.02 0.03 0.65 0.02 0.03 0.67 ssize 0.01 0.00 6.10 *** 0.01 0.00 6.12 *** RF 0.98 1.28 0.77 0.95 1.27 0.74 Interactions ret*gen 10.69 2.27 4.71 *** Random E ffects PE SE Z PE SE Z PE SE Z gen 37.27 17.68 2.11 41.35 17.60 2.35 42.65 17.76 2.40 ** race 5.51 19.09 0.29 5.23 18.08 0.29 4.12 18.01 0.23

PAGE 90

81 Ta u00 102.52 11.87 8.64 *** 81.11 18.38 4.41 *** 65.36 17.35 3.77 *** 65.02 17.36 3.75 *** Sigma 2 2357.11 28.31 83.25 *** 2312.35 28.09 82.33 *** 2312.77 28.08 82.36 *** 2309.56 28.04 82.37 *** Pseudo R 2 R 2 within R 2 bet ween R 2 within R 2 between R 2 within R 2 between .02 .21 .02 .36 .02 .37 p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .0001 Note : PE = parameter estimate; SE = standard error; ret is retention status cod ed 0 for retained and 1 for good cause promoted; gen is gender is coded 0 for female and 1 for male; race is coded 0 for Caucasian and 1 for all other races; student ses is coded 0 if not eligible for free or reduced lunch and 1 if eligible; sses i s the grand mean centered proportion of students in the study at a school that are eligible for free or reduced lunch; ssize is the grand mean centered variable for school population; RF is Reading First coded 0 for a control school and 1 for a program school; level 1 sample size equals 14593; level 2 sample size equals 792; and the intra class correlation (ICC) derived from the unconditional model equals .04.

PAGE 91

82 Model 2 Level 1 (student) variables. This model included the Level 1 student variables of r etention status, gender, race, and SES. The equation is given as Y ij = ? 00 + ? 01 *retstat + ? 02 *gender + ? 03 *race + ? 04 *SES + 0 j + r i j Because student level predictors were entered as both fixed and random effects, not only did the model stipulate that a students FCAT Reading score is related to these student level variabl es, but also that these relationships can vary across schools. The results of this model demonstrated that the covariance parameters for retention status and SES were estimated to be zero, suggesting that the relationship between 5 th grade FCAT Reading and these variables did not vary by school in this sample. Thus, the decision was made to eliminate retention status and SES as covariates in this and all subsequent models. Within the Level 1 model, fixed effects of retention status (3.43; t = 2.95, p < .01) gender ( 11.39; t = 13.39, p < .0001) and SES ( 5.86 (t = 4.78, p < .0001), were demonstrated to be significant predictors of FCAT Reading performance Gender (37.27; Z = 2.11, p < .05) was a significant covariate, indicating that whether a student was male or female had varying effects on FCAT Reading performance, depending on which school he or she attended. Model fit was assessed and the AIC (154936.40) indicated that this model fit the data slightly better than the unconditional model. However, even after including these specific student variables, this model explained only 2% of the explainable variance within schools ( s = 2312.35, p < .0001); considerable additional explainable variation in FCAT Reading scores within schools remains. Model 3 Ful l model Because the goal of this study was to examine the impact of student level variables on students predicted FCAT Reading performance while

PAGE 92

83 accounting for key differences in the school that they attended, the next step involved entering school level variables into the model. Y ij = ? 00 + ? 01 *retstat + ? 02 *gender + ? 03 *race + ? 04 *SES + ? 05 *schoolses + ? 06 *schoolpop + ? 07 *readingfirst + 0 + r i The student variables of gender and race were again allowed to covary by school in this model. The fit results indicated four significant main effects, including retention status (3.11; t = 2.69, p < .01), gender ( 11.33; t = 13.27, p < .0001), SES ( 4.78; t = 3.82, p < .001), and school size ( 0.01; t = 6.10, p < .0001). Gender was again a significant covariate (41.35; Z = 2.35, p < .01). The fit of this model was slightly improved over the previous model (AIC 154903.30). Model 4 Full model with interactions The full model included all student and school level variables as fixed effects, and took into acc ount random effects of the student variables gender and race In addition, a total of 21 interaction effects between all variables were examined, with only one interaction (i.e., retention status x gender) demonstrating statistical significance (10.69, t = 4.68, p < .0001). For full detailed results of this model, see Appendix A. The AIC for Model 4 was larger than that for Model 3 (154906.60), suggesting that the inclusion of all possible interactions was not a good fit for the data, and was possibly maski ng the significance of some main effects. With this information, the fifth, and final, model was built using all student and school predictors as fixed effects, the student variables of gender and race as random effects, and the interaction between retenti on status and gender.

PAGE 93

84 Model 5 Full Model with one significant interaction Results from this model showed that FCAT Reading (5 th grade) = 273.87 + ( 12.99*female) + ( 4.72*not low SES) + 0.01*schoolpop + 10.69*retained*female + 42.65*gender variance + 65.02*between schools variance + 2309.56*within schools variance. This model indicated a significant interaction effect between retention status and gender (10.69; t = 4.71 p < .0001). Thus, the slopes for these variables differ depending on whether a st udent was retained or promoted. A graph of the interaction effect is shown in Figure 1. Specifically, being male and promoted through a good cause exemption resulted in an average increase of 8.04 points on the FCAT Reading when compared to being male and retained. Alternatively, being retained or promoted through an exemption resulted in more similar outcomes among female students (273.87 and 271.243, respectively). As an alternative perspective on this interaction effect, it appears that retention status affected female and male students much differently, with female retained students demonstrating higher estimated scores on the FCAT Reading ( 273.87 ), and male retained students not faring as well ( 260.881 ). Alternatively, being promoted through a good cau se exemption indicating proficiency seemed to result in similar outcomes for both males (268.942) and females (271.243), t hat is, there was a smaller difference in mean reading scores between males and females who were promoted through a good cause exempti on indicating proficiency.

PAGE 94

85 Figure 1 Retention Status X Gender Effects on 5 th grade FCAT Reading Score 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Gender Retained Good Cause Promoted There was a significant main effect for student SES, indicating that when all other variables are average or zero values, student SES is associated w ith FCAT Reading, such that the average score for students who do not qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch (273.87) is significantly higher than that of students who qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch (269.15). Another main effect demonstrating significance wa s school size, indicating that students in larger schools scored higher on the FCAT Reading than students in smaller schools (.01; t = 6.12, p < .0001). The AIC value is the lowest observed (154877.70), indicating that of the models compared, this model re presents the best fit for the data. Importantly, the remaining explainable between school variance not accounted for in this model (65.02) is significant (Z = 3.75, p < .0001); however, it is considerably smaller than that in the unconditional model (102.5 2). This decrease in between school variance indicates that the predictors and interaction effects in the full model explain 37% of the explainable

PAGE 95

86 variation in FCAT Reading scores between schools. Because the initial amount of between school variation was small (see unconditional model) compared to the amount of within school variation, this 37% must be interpreted accordingly. With regard to within school variance, the predictors and interaction effects in this model explained only 2% of the explainable v ariation in FCAT Reading scores within schools. The remaining explainable within school variance remains high (2290.13), suggesting that there are additional student level factors that might explain the variation in school means.

PAGE 96

87 CHAPTER FIVE Discussi on The pupil progression plan for the State of Florida mandates retention in the third grade for those students who fail to demonstrate adequate reading skills as measured by the statewide reading achievement test the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Te st Reading (FCAT Reading). Students who do not meet th is criteri on, but who qualify for a good cause exemption [e. g. demonstration of proficiency through a portfolio or another other norm referenced achievement test, previous grade retention(s)] can be promoted to the fourth grade nevertheless The present study investigated the longitudinal academic outcomes of the practices of retention and promotion of low achieving third grade students within the context of statewide performance assessment and state mandated remediation efforts. The educational context and climate in Florida continues to be in a state of flux, as new policies and procedures have been perceived by many educators in the state as being establish ed almost continuously since the enactment of the N o C hild L eft B ehind (NCLB) federal legislation and subsequent state legislation. The implementation of policy changes has created an educational climate that is experienced by many educators, as well as students and families, to be characterized b y pressure and uncertainty at every level. Legislators and p olicy makers are being asked to apply a major piece of federal

PAGE 97

88 legislation to the educational system in the State of Florida A s a result of state subsequent state legislation t ying the FCAT to h igh stakes decisions such as retention and grades for schools administrators are dealing with very large numbers of third grade students at a time when a recently passed constitutional amendment limits the size of classroom, meaning that extra class es hav e had to be created to accommodate these extra students. In addition, they are also faced with the possibility of losing access to funding on which they have counted in the past. Teachers are impacted by the controversy sparked by pressure that exists to teach to the test Finally, students as young as kindergarten ers are aware of the FCAT Reading and the ramifications they will face if they fail the test ; many students experience cons iderable anxiety about being left behind in the third grade. The anxi ety that has impacted the entire state has resulted in large part from the recency of the legislative changes, lack of familiarity with or uncertainty about the procedures, and the rapidity with which educators have been compelled to comply. This climate o f stress may affect students scores in these early years; however, it is possible that time will ease the impact of some or all of these factors, and these changes in Floridas educational climate may impact the academic outcomes of students who are retai ned due to inadequate performance on the FCAT Reading. In fact, the percentages of third grade students being retained have declined in more recent years (i.e., from 14.6% in 2003 to 6.8% in 2006). Nevertheless, this is a situation that should continue to be monitored closely. Summary of Findings Findings of the present study indicated that, of the students retained in third grade in 2003 60% scored at Levels 2 or higher on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading (i.e., passed

PAGE 98

89 the FCAT Reading) three years later in 2006. This finding is encouraging, as it suggests that retention was associated with positive academic outcomes; after repeating the third grade curriculum and, at least in terms of mandate by policy, receiving intensive academic supports, almost two third s of the retaine d students were successful in achieving a passing FCAT Reading score as defined by state standards. Upon closer examination, however, it is noted that only about one third (32%) of all retained students were considered to be proficient rea ders according to the FLDOE (i.e., they scored at Levels 3 5) at the end of fifth grade. This percentage is quite small less than one half the rate when compared to all fifth grade students taking the 5 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006 (i.e., 84% scored Level s 2 5, 68% scored Levels 3 5; Florida Department of Education, 2007c); on the other hand it also represents considerable improvement within this retained group of students when compared to their earlier performance (i.e., all had scored at Level 1 in 2003 ). These findings also illustrate the lack of consistency in Florida's definitions of "adequate reading skills", which makes the interpretation of such seemingly contradictory results difficult. Students who score at Level 2 on the FCAT Reading are demons trating only "limited success" with the curriculum; however, according to the state pupil progression plan, these same students are eligible for promotion to the fourth grade. As such, they are considered to be "adequate" to be promoted, but "inadequate" a s readers. According to state legislation and for the purposes of this study, Levels 2 5 define success; however, it is important to keep in mind that many of the students who have been promoted actually have limited reading skills. It should also be noted that federal and state legislation have targeted different goals with regards to this issue, with the

PAGE 99

90 federal government being primarily concerned that students in Florida schools are making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), or increasing the number of prof icient readers (defined by the State of Florida as students scoring Levels 3 5 on the FCAT). Alternatively, local and state policies focus on decreasing the number of students who score at Level 1 on the FCAT and face mandatory retention. Thus, decreasing retention rates (the state goal) and increasing the proportion of proficient readers (the federal goal) are two separate issues, providing a possible explanation for the difficulty that exists in categorizing students scoring at Level 2. The findings are less equivocal, but also less positive, for students who scored at Level 1 in 2003, but were promoted due to a good cause exemption. Results show that 59% of these students failed the fifth grade version of the FCAT Reading (i.e., they scored at Level 1) i n 2005. Taken alone, this is an alarmingly high number; however, when compared with the 40% of retained students who failed the fifth grade FCAT Reading, results suggest that students who were promoted through good cause fared much worse in later years tha n those who were retained. With regard to the 2006 performance of students who were promoted due to a good cause exemption in 2003, 56% failed the sixth grade version of the FCAT Reading a proportion very similar to the failure rate in the fifth grade S ince these students took a different version of the FCAT Reading than did the retained students (i.e., they took the sixth grade test, rather than the fifth grade test), the results are not directly comparable; however, these findings again indicate that w ithin their respective curricula, the retained Level 1 students were more competent in reading proficiency relative to the promoted Level 1 students.

PAGE 100

91 In a ddition, while 41% (2005) and 44% (2006) of Level 1 students promoted through a good cause exemption passed the 6 th grade FCAT Reading at a Level 2 or higher, only 19% (2005) and 21 % (2006) were considered proficient readers (i.e., scoring at Level 3 or higher). It appears that the majority of students promoted to fourth grade through a good cause exe mption in 2003 did not meet with success with either the fifth or sixth grade curriculum, a situation predicted by their scores on the third grade FCAT Reading. It is important to consider the results for each type of exemption, however, as students who were promoted due to an exemption that required a demonstration of proficiency in reading (i.e., passing an alternate test, student portfolio) fared quite well in both fifth and sixth grades. Of students promoted for one of the two proficiency exemption s, 61% passed the FCAT Reading in fifth grade in 2005, and 64% passed the FCAT Reading in sixth grade in 2006, (i.e., scoring at a Level 2 or higher). In addition to these encouraging results with regards to students promoted through alternate demonstr ations of reading proficiency, another group that fared similarly well consisted of students who were promoted due to having Limited English Proficiency (LEP) in 2003 with less than two years of English as a Second Language. Although they lacked adequate r eading skills in 2003, and large numbers of these students were still significantly behind in 2004 (69% scored at Level 1 in 4 th grade in 2004; Powell, 2005), a significant portion of this group improved their reading skills by the time they took the FCAT Reading in the sixth grade. Results demonstrate that almost half of these students (49%) scored at Level 2 or higher in 2006 presumably aided by an improved mastery of the English language On the other hand, the majority (51%) still scored at Level 1.

PAGE 101

92 T aken altogether, these findings indicate that there is a distinct difference between students who were promoted to grade four as a result of demonstrating proficiency in reading and those who were promoted for a reason unrelated to adequate academic skills (e.g., IEP indicating inappropriateness of FCAT Reading, previous retentions, etc.). Thus, it would be unwise to draw conclusions about the appropriateness of promoting students through good cause exemptions without more closely examining the implications of each type of exemption. For example, allowing students to display their skills through alternative mechanisms appears to be an asset to the pupil progression plan; such exemptions provide an additional tool with which students who are likely to be succ essful with later curricula can be identified. For students who experience test anxiety, or a diminished performance on the FCAT Reading for any reason other than inadequate skills, these exemptions seem appropriate. These descriptive data suggest that the majority of these students possess the skills necessary to be successful in the next grade and beyond, maintaining their relative skill level into the sixth grade. In addition, students who qualified for exemption through Limited English Proficiency (LEP) due to less than two years of instruction in an English for Speakers of Other Languages program improved over time; by grade six, their performance on the FCAT Reading at that time was similar to that of the group promoted through a demonstration of profi ciency This could indicate a need for extra time to master certain aspects of the basic reading curriculum (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics) before they can be expected to progress along with their same age peers for whom English is their primary langua ge. However, results from this study suggest that, despite lacking basic reading skills in third grade, these students are not falling farther behind as a result of

PAGE 102

93 being promoted to fourth grade. Rather, they seem to have made up ground, with almost half of them passing the FCAT Reading in the sixth grade (i.e., Levels 2 5). Students qualifying for one of the other three good cause exemptions were also promoted and experienced the fourth grade curriculum without adequate basic reading skills; these studen ts appear to have spent the subsequent few years falling even farther behind. Indeed, their performance three years after promotion to fourth grade shows no evidence of an increase in skills relative to their low achieving peers. Though they are classified as being promoted due to good cause, this group of students may have very different needs from those who were able to demonstrate reading competency in an alternate manner. It may be appropriate for policy makers to re examine the purpose of promoting t hese students and to identify where and how their academic needs would best be served. This study also conducted a direct comparison of two groups of students scoring at Level 1 in third grade: those who were retained in third grade and those who had demon strated proficiency through another method and were promoted through one of two good cause exemptions. Students in both groups completed the 5 th grade FCAT Reading, albeit in different years (i.e., 2005 and 2006, depending on retention status) at the time of this study. Preliminary analyses demonstrated that average student performance varied across schools, indicating the need to statistically control for this between school variance. In the best fitting model that accounted for the fact that student data are nested within schools, analyses revealed that whether a student was retained or promoted through a good cause exemption was indeed associated with FCAT Reading scores, but the magnitude of this effect varied across student gender. Specifically, being m ale and

PAGE 103

94 promoted through a good cause exemption resulted in an average increase of 12.99 points on the FCAT Reading when compared to being male and retained. Alternatively, being retained or promoted through an exemption resulted in similar outcomes among female students. In addition to this significant interaction effect, student SES was significantly associated with a schools estimated mean FCAT Reading score. Specifically, students w ho were low SES tended to be associated with lower school average FCAT Reading scores by an estimated 4.72 points. The main effects and interaction effects found in this study involving the student characteristics of gender and SES are not particularly surprising. Previous research has established that gender (Jimerson, 1999; Pagani et al., 2001), race (Jimerson, 1999; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999), and SES status (Jimerson, 1999; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999; Fergusen et al., 2001) may act as predictors of retention during the elementary grades. Specifically, these studies report that be ing male, a member of an ethnic minority group, and having a low SES status put children at a higher risk for grade retention. The findings from the current study indicate that gender and student SES continue to impact academic performance during and after the retention year. With regard to retention status, it appears that being retained in third grade after scoring at Level 1 on the FCAT Reading is particularly detrimental to male students, as measured by FCAT Reading scores in the 5 th grade. With the FC AT Reading scoring scale set such that Level 2 is defined by a range of only 24 points (i.e., scaled score = 259 283), the almost 13 point difference between the retained and promoted groups among males in this study seems qualitatively important. This res ult seems to cast doubt on the remedial effect of retention for these students and also raises the question of

PAGE 104

95 gender differences in remediation responsiveness, as well as in acquiring reading skills in general. It is somewhat curious, given the efforts an d resources invested in the development of Reading First schools, that a clear benefit wa s not found across this low achieving sample. One possible explanation for this finding is that this study examin ed the outcomes for already struggling readers. It cou ld be that the real strength of the Reading First program will be seen more clearly in its preventative efforts, that is, a reduction in the percentage of students attending Reading First schools since kindergarten who score at Level 1 in third grade. Anot her possible explanation for the observed outcome in this study is that in the State of Florida, Reading First funds are distributed according to, among other things, a demonstration that a significant portion of students in a district/school receiving sup port are eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch. Given this low income student sample, the known association between low student SES and higher academic need, and a previously demonstrated lack of reading skills in 2003, it seems reasonable to expect that even with the additional interventions associated with Reading First schools, students may need more time before identifiable improvements are seen. Finally, because the interventions associated with the Reading First program target students in grades K 3, onl y the retained students in this study could have had the opportunity to be exposed to this program, and for only one year. It could be that the limited number of students who were exposed to the program for a limited amount of time contributed to the lack of significant intervention effects.

PAGE 105

96 Limitations One identified threat to validity in this study is related to the central measure of reading skills used both in this study as well as in Floridas student progression plan, the FCAT Reading There are ma ny issues, too many to delineate here, concerning the use of standardized tests for high stakes decisions such as grade retention. A major concern is the possibility that FCAT Reading scores may not be a true representation of a students actual reading sk ills. Certainly the results of the present study have found that for some students, particularly those who qualified for promot ion through an alternate test or portfolio, the FCAT Reading did not provide the best estimate of their reading skills as the maj ority managed to be quite successful in sixth grade regardless of their poor performance on the test in the third grade Although other methods of evaluating reading skills may need to be explored, the State of Florida is currently relying heavily on the F CAT to determine reading skill level; thus, FCAT Reading scores were used in this study as well. Another threat to validity in this study involves treatment integrity with regard to state mandated intervention through Academic Improvement Plans (AIPs) for retained students. The Florida Department of Education delineated several components of an AIP in reading, including: 1) a description of specific deficiencies in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary, 2) concrete goals in ea ch area, and 3) the specific instructional and/or support services provided (Florida Department of Education, 2003g). For students who we re retained in third grade due to receiving a Level 1 score on the FCAT Reading, it would have been important to review their AIPs at the beginning of the retention year and again as soon as it wa s determined that the student

PAGE 106

97 m ight fail the FCAT Reading again (Florida Department of Education, 2003h). Th e AIP implementation plan attempt ed to control for the quality of each students reading remediation; however, the plan wa s deficient in at least two areas that may have impacted the conclusions drawn in the present study. Although every student who receive d a Level 1 score on the FCAT Reading, regardless of retention/promoti on status, should have had an AIP there wa s no method in place for evaluat ing the consistency of AIPs with state requirements or to ensure that each student wa s actually receiving the intervention as intended. It is highly possible that students AIPs var ied widely both in quality of construction and in implementation, making statistical results difficult to interpret. It is only through detailed documentation regarding the extent to which each student received interventions as mandated that an evaluation of the effectiveness of the interventions, as well as the retention year itself, would be possible. Another issue that could have impact ed the construction and implementation of AIPs wa s the variability of the remedial activities which we re defined by th e state as effective instructional practices and scientifically based reading instruction. No further details we re provided regarding specific activities and interventions, making it incumbent upon practitioners such as school psychologists and teacher s to make th o se decisions according to the specific needs of each student (Florida Department of Education, 2003h). While this afford ed great individualization, it also implies that actual interventions m ight have var ied widely, disallowing generalizations about their effectiveness. For the reasons mentioned above, examination of the quality of AIPs was considered to be beyond the scope of the present study and was not included. It must be pointed out that legislation has now replaced the AIP with a mandate d Progress

PAGE 107

98 Monitoring Plan (PMP) that places greater emphasis on the use of data to monitor student performance. Nevertheless, issues relating to the integrity on PMP implementation need to be addressed. In addition to the uncertainties surrounding the imp lementation of AIPs, there are similar questions regarding the consistency with which Reading First schools were able to implement specified reading interventions as intended. It is important to keep in mind that the intervention year, or the year direct ly following the retention decision for this sample of students, was the first year that Reading First programs were instituted within designated schools. Given the recency of the new federal policies and state legislation at that time, it is probable that an adjustment or transition period exist ed for this program as well. As with any program, increased time and familiarity with the Reading First program w ould likely lead to improved implementation, and improved outcomes. The monitoring of adjustment issue s, and later modifications to the Reading First program is also beyond the scope of the current study, but these issues remain an important consideration when interpreting the results of this study This study was not able to control for inconsistencies in data coding or entry, factors that also threaten the validity of the findings. Data were ent ered in thousands of schools across the state over several years by numerous coders, using a coding system that was initially unknown and untested. In addition, th e study variable of socioeconomic status was defined using students free or reduced lunch qualification status. These data were collected by the state and thus this category could not be defined more clearly. While the qualification status for free or red uced lunch as a definition of high or low SES is perhaps overly broad and may not offer a clear picture of students actual

PAGE 108

99 socioeconomic status, it is a widely accepted method of categorization in both research and practice. Additionally, the present st udy did not include a control group, as the retained and promoted groups of students were not matched. Although the study investigated long term outcomes of retention and grade promotion, the data were cross sectional in nature, which limited the nature of the conclusions that could be drawn. Inclusion of a true experimental control group is not ethically possible in this type of research; however, a longitudinal design in which individual student scores were examined across time (i.e., growth curve analysi s) would strengthen the study by allowing conclusions to be drawn about the long term outcomes of early grade retention at the student level. Delimitations The results may be generalized to students who are retained in the third grade in the State of Flor ida, or in a similar student progression program which requires a structured plan of remediation for every retained student. In addition to retained students, the study includes participants who performed poorly (Level 1) on the FCAT but were promoted due to one of six good cause exemptions. Results can be generalized to other third grade students who meet these requirements. Results cannot be generalized to older or younger populations, or to students with special needs not included in the predefined good cause exemptions. Implications for Practice and Future Research Most educators and researchers concur that neither repeating the same curriculum by repeating a grade nor merely being promoted to the next grade will provide sufficient opportunities for stud ents who are experiencing academic difficulties to experience

PAGE 109

100 success; the results of the present study support this position Instead, struggling students will need consistent, intensive, and empirically supported remediation efforts to make sufficient ac ademic gains, and maintain them over time. Florida has instituted AIPs and now PMPs to address this need; however, student outcomes suggest that gaps exist ed in one or more areas that may have impede d the effectiveness of AIPs, for example, in the developm ent and monitoring of the plans, as well as continuing professional development for personnel relative to the use of the AIPs Findings from the present study also suggest that certain subgroups of students (e.g., those promoted through good cause exemptio ns not related to reading proficiency males, students with a low SES) are at risk for lowered performance on later assessments of reading proficiency (i.e., 5 th grade FCAT Reading); the AIP system and resulting interventions did not prov e as effective for these subgroups. This indicates a need to make appropriate modifications that will target these at risk students and schools, includ ing the development of new interventions or more frequent monitoring and appropriate modifications. The data from this stud y also raise questions in terms of policy decisions that promote students scoring at Level 1 through good cause exemptions. The purpose of student promotion through good cause is arguably to help these students achieve future academic success; however, fin dings of the current study indicate that only one exemption provides a viable predictor of long term success. Students promoted through Exemption 1 (demonstration of proficiency through an alternative assessment) have a 67% chance of passing the FCAT Rea ding at Level 2 or higher in the sixth grade. Students promoted through Exemption 2 (demonstration of proficiency through portfolio) have a 58% chance of passing, while students promoted through Exemption 3

PAGE 110

101 (demonstration of limited proficiency in English) have roughly a 50% chance of passing. Students promoted through the other three categories have only a 13% 19% chance of passing. The State of Florida has not defined what percentage of students promoted through a good cause exemption must pass the FCAT R eading in the fourth grade in order for the exemption to be considered a valid reason for promotion. This study provides further support for the practice of promoting students who demonstrate proficiency through alternate assessment tests or through portf olios, as there was not a demonstrated difference between scores of retained and promoted female students. There was an observed difference between scores of retained and promoted male students; however, the male students promoted through good cause exempt ions indicating proficiency scored significantly higher on the 5 th grade FCAT Reading. In addition to providing added support for the practice of promoting students based on alternate demonstrations of reading proficiency, the findings in this study raise questions with regard to the appropriateness of the other exemptions as reasons to promote students to the fourth grade. The good cause exemption issue, it seems, relates to the overall purpose of the policy with regard to students who fail the FCAT Rea ding. If the purpose is to promote students who demonstrate reasonable evidence of being able to make it with successive curricula, the rationale for Exemptions 1 and 2 may be supported. The purpose of the policy could also be better defined with regard to the exemptions indicating non proficiency. If policy makers wish to promote only those students with a reasonable chance for success, they would be wise to reexamine students who are qualifying for promotion through Exemptions 4 6. What is contributing to their high rates of long term

PAGE 111

102 academic failure (i.e., scoring Level 1 on the FCAT Reading in sixth grade) and their apparent resistance to remediation efforts, and what can be done to reduce those rates? If the purpose of promoting these students lies i n something other than academic achievement (e.g., social or emotional health), further research is needed to determine whether these outcomes can be empirically supported and in turn, whether promoting students through these exemptions can be considered a valid practice. Future research should also expand on the findings presented in this study. More information is needed regarding the student (e.g., demographic characteristics, family support, etc.) or ecological variables (e.g., teacher variables, rural locations, specific interventions used, etc.) that may have contributed to the observed variability in outcomes. For example, school size was demonstrated to have a significant impact on student performance, with students from larger schools scoring higher than students from smaller schools. Based upon what is known about the relationship between school size and location in the state of Florida, one cannot reliably conclude that size alone accounts for the difference in student performance. Specifically, wi thin the state of Florida, small schools are typically located in rural, less affluent areas of the state with higher populations of transitory families. Future studies could address the types variables that may be at work behind a more general variable li ke school size. The findings reported in the present study also raise important questions regarding the effects of treatment integrity on outcomes (Do higher levels of treatment integrity during the retention year result in better academic outcomes?), the use of cutoff scores in determining student progression, and which students will most benefit from which types of remediation efforts (What is the treatment utility of using a cutoff score to determine

PAGE 112

103 student progression, and what are the most valid sele ction criteria?), and variability in performance according to retention status across gender, as well as SES (What interventions may be more beneficial for retained male and/or poor students?). Given the descriptive findings in this study indicating that a cademic gains demonstrated by the majority of retained students continue through subsequent grades, an even more detailed examination of these students over time (i.e., growth curve analysis) is warranted. Finally, a more detailed comparison of Level 1 stu dents who were retained with those who were promoted through exemptions indicating proficiency should include a sample that is matched on various student characteristics (e.g., 2003 FCAT Reading scaled score, gender, race, SES). Another important issue bey ond the scope of this study is the social and emotional ramifications of being retained. Research has consistently reported the negative social and emotional effects of grade retention, such as poorer school attendance, social adjustment, and more problem behaviors (Holmes, 1989), as well as peer difficulties (Shepard & Smith, 1990). Grade retention has historically been a stigmatizing experience for many students such that even the large numbers seen in the S tate of Florida would not necessarily improve th e emotional outcomes of being ostracized from one s peer group. Despite this concern, however, no studies have examined these constructs in the context of large scale retention as part of a state wide pupil progression plan. Conclusions Recognition of the importance of early literacy skills has resulted in a national educational climate that emphasizes reading development in students in grades K through 3. Education p olicies in the State of Florida have reflected this climate; its pupil

PAGE 113

104 progression plan inc ludes the use of high stakes testing and mandatory retention for third grade students who do not display adequate progress toward the acquisition of reading skills. In addition, third grade students who are retained in Florida are required through legislat ion and policy to receive intensive academic interventions and their progress must be monitored through the collection and analysis of data The literature is replete with studies indicating the potentially harmful effects of grade retention on students f uture academic progress; however, previous research has not included an examination of the effects of remediation efforts such as those that exist in Florida occurring during the retention year. The present study found that the majority of students who were retained in third grade scored at Levels 2 or higher on the FCAT Reading several years following the retention decision (60%). Proportionately f ewer students who failed the FCAT Reading in 2003 but were promoted through a good cause exemption requiri ng a demonstration of proficiency were successful in the sixth grade (40%); those promoted through a good cause exemption not requiring demonstration of reading proficiency were found to be still struggling in sixth grade despite presumed remedial efforts; more than 80% of students in these groups failed the 6 th grade FCAT Reading in 2006 However, those promoted through one of the good cause exemptions requiring a demonstration of proficiency fared quite well (i.e., 67% and 58% scored at Level 2 or higher for the use of an alternative standardized test or of a student portfolio, respectively ). When comparing the fifth grade performance of this smaller group of good cause promoted students with the fifth grade performance of retained students, no difference in average in FCAT Reading performance was seen. Taken together, these results suggest support for both retention and good cause promotion practices based on demonstration of reading proficiency as

PAGE 114

105 well as the appropriateness of examining subgroups of st udents when creating policy. In addition, several risk factors for lowered performance in subsequent years after the decision to retain or promote were identified, including being male, and being of low SES. However, the cross sectional design and lack of experimental control in this study preclude making definitive conclusions. Future efforts should focus on learning more about these specific populations, as current interventions appear to be less effective with certain groups of students.

PAGE 115

106 References Aka ike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model of identification. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control 19 716 723. Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1994). On the success of failure: A reassessment of the effects of retention in t he primary grades New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Armistead, L., Kempton, T., Lynch, S., & Forhand, R. (1992). Early retention: Are there long term beneficial effects? Psychology in the Schools, 29 (4), 342 347. Buntaine, R. L., & Costenbader, V. K. (1997). The effectiveness of a transitional prekindergarten program on later academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 43 41 50. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Equality and achievement in education. San Francisco: Westview Press. Dennebaum, J. M., & Ku lberg, J. M. (1994). Kindergarten retention and transition classrooms: Their relationship to achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 31 5 12. Ferguson, P., Jimerson, S. R. & Dalton, M. J. (2001). Sorting out successful failures: Exploratory analyses of fa ctors associated with academic and behavioral outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 38 (4), 327 341. Fine, J. G., & Davis, J. M. (2003). Grade retention and post secondary enrollment. Journal of School Psychology, 41 401 411. Florida Department of Education (2002). Student Progression. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/commhome/progress/proghome.htm

PAGE 116

107 Florida Department of Education (2002b). Technical report: For operat ional test Administrations of the 2000 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/sas/fcat/pdf/fc00tech.pdf Florida Department of Educatio n. (2003a). No Child Left Behind: Adequate yearly progress fact sheet. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.fldoe.org/NCLB/ Florida Department of Education. (2003b). Just Read, Florida!: Reading First. Retrie ved March 7, 2006 from http://www.justreadflorida.com/reading_first.asp Florida Department of Education. (2003c). FCAT reading SSS. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Tes t. Retrieved Marc h 7, 2006 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/sas/fcat.htm Florida Department of Education. (2003d). Third grade reading 2003 profiles. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/bin00014/progress/pro file.htm Florida Department of Education. (2003e). Good Cause Exemptions. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.fldoe. org/ese/pdf/y2004 17.pdf Florida Department of Education. (2003f). Third Grade Progression Requirements for students who were retained. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from ] http://www.firn.edu/doe/commhome/progress/proghome.htm Florida Department of Education. (2003g). Public School Student Progression. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://info.fldoe.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document 433/DPS_Memo_03 024 attach2.pdf

PAGE 117

108 Florida Department of Education. (2003h). Technical Assistance Paper Related to Third Grade Student Pr ogression. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/commhome/progress/proghome.htm Florida Department of Education (2004a). Third Grade Reading 2004 Profile State. Retri eved March 7, 2006 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/commhome/pdf/3statesum.pdf Florida Department of Education (2004b). Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test 2004: State Report of District Re sults. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://fcat.fldoe.org/2004/default.asp Florida Department of Education (2005). Reading and Mathematics Scores GRADE 3 Statewide Comparison for 2001 to 2005. Retr ieved March 7, 2006 from http://fcat.fldoe.org/ Florida Department of Education (2006). Report on the Recommendations of the Paper Reduction Task Force. Retrieved June 24, 2007 from http://www.fldoe.org/PaperReduction/pdfs/PRTF_Report.pdf Florida Department of Education (2007a). Non Promotions in Floridas Public Schools, 2005 2006. Retrieved June 3, 2007 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/eias/eiaspubs/pdf/nonpromotions.pdf Florida Department of Education (2007b). Florida School Indicators Report. Retrieved May 29, 2007 from http ://data.fldoe.org/fsir/ Florida Department of Education (2007c). FCAT 2006 Reading and Mathematics Scores. Retrieved June 7, 2007 from http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcinfopg.asp

PAGE 118

109 Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collecti ve efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (3), 467 476. Gottfredson, D. C., Fink, C. M., & Graham, N. (1994). Grade retention and problem behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 31 (4), 761 784. 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. Hong, G., & Ga udenbush, S. W. (2005). Effects of kindergarten retention policy on childrens cognitive growth in reading and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27 (3), 205 224. Jackson, G. B. (1975). The research evidence on the effects of grade ret ention. Review of Educational Research, 45 613 635. Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. E. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In L. Lynn Jr. & M. G. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner city poverty in the United States (pp. 111 186). Washingto n, DC: National Academy Press. 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 (3), 243 272. Jimerson, S (2001). Meta analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21 st century. School Psychology Review, 30 (3), 420 437. Jimerson, S., Carlson, E., Rotert, M., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, A. (1997). A prospective, longitudinal study of the correlates and consequences of early grade retention. Journal of School Psychology, 35 (1), 3 25.

PAGE 119

110 Just Read, Florida. (2003). Read to Learn: Intervention Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www .read to learn.org/intervention.html Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental scores. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Ma, X., & Willms, J. D. (2004). School disciplinary climate: Characteristics and effects on eighth grade achievem ent. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50 (2), 169 188. Mantzicopoulos, P. (1997). Do certain groups of children profit from early retention? A follow up study of kindergartners with attention problems. Psychology in the Schools, 34 115 127. Mantzic opoulos, P., & Morrison, D. (1992). Kindergarten retention: Academic and behavioral outcomes through the end of second grade. American Educational Research Journal, 29 182 198. McCoach, D. B., OConnell, A. A., & Reis, S. M. (2006). Growing readers: A hie rarchical linear model of childrens reading growth during the first 2 years of school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 14 28. McCoy, A. R., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Grade retention and school performance: An extended investigation. Journal of S chool Psychology, 37 (3), 273 298. Meisels, S. J., & Liaw, F. (1993). Failure in grade: Do retained students catch up? Journal of Educational Research, 87 (2), 69 77. Nagin, D. S., Pagani, L., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2003). Life course turning points: The effect of grade retention on physical aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 15 343 361.

PAGE 120

111 National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implicatio ns for reading instruction. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm No Child Left Behind. (2002). Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=pb Pagani, L., Tremblay, R., Vitaro, F., Boulerice, B., & McDuff, P. (2001). Effects of grade retention on academic performance and behavioral development. Develop ment & Psychopathology, 13 (2), 297 315. 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, 27 107 118. Phelps, L., Dowdell, N. Rizzo, F. G., Ehrlich, P., & Wilczenski, F. (1992). Five to ten years after placement: The long term efficacy of retention and pre grade transition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 10 116 123. Powell, H. (2005). Third grade retention and the Fl orida Comprehensive Assessment Test: An exploratory study Unpublished thesis Porter, L. (2005). The effects of grade retention on the performance of students on high stakes testing. Unpublished thesis. Pressley, M., Wharton McDonald, R., Allington, R., Bl ock, C. C., Morrow, L., Tracey, D., Baker, K., Grookes, G., Cronin, J., Nelson, E., & Woo, D. (2001). A study of effective first grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (1), 35 58.

PAGE 121

112 Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical l inear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2 nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Grade retention and school adjustment: An explanatory analysis. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 14 (2), 101 121. Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). D oes segregation still matter? The impact of student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record, 107 (9), 1999 2045. Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal change and school context Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. The Florida Senate. (2003). The 2003 Florida Statutes: Title XLVIII; Chapter 1008. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search _String=&URL=Ch1008/SEC25.HTM&Title= United States Department of Education, (2002). Overview: Why NCLB is Important to Ameri ca. Retrieved March 7, 3006 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/edlite index.html United States Department of Education. (2003a). Stronger accountability: Accountabil ity for schools. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/schools/accountability.html United States Department of Education. (2003b). Introduction: No Child Left Behind Retrieved May 3, 2005 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/edlite index.html

PAGE 122

113 United States Department of Education. (2003c). Stronger accountabi lity: The facts about making gains each year. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp/yearly.html United States Department of Education. (2003d). Proven methods: Reading. Retrieved March 7, 2006 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/reading/reading.html Vitaro, F., Desmarais Gervais, L., Tremblay, R. E., & Gagnon, C. (1992). Social adjustm ent at the beginning of elementary school and preschool day care arrangements. Revue des Sciences de lEducation, 18 1 15.

PAGE 123

114 Appendices

PAGE 124

115 Appendix A. Full Model + All Interactions Model 4 Full Model + All Interactions Fixed effec t PE SE t Intercept 273.20 2.85 95.93 *** ret 3.61 3.47 1.04 gender 11.15 2.64 4.21 *** race 0.37 2.97 0.12 ses 4.56 2.90 1.57 sses 0.03 0.08 0.31 ssize 0.02 0.00 3.09 ** RF 3.70 3.52 1.05 Interactions ret*gen 10.69 2.29 4.68 *** ret*race 0.85 2.95 0.29 ret*ses 3.20 3.16 1.01 ret*sses 0.02 0.07 0.30 ret*ssize 0.00 0.00 0.07 ret*RF 4.05 2.92 1.39 gen*race 1.07 2.21 0.48 gen*ses 1.88 2.55 0.74 gen*sses 0.03 0.0 5 0.63 gen*ssize 0.00 0.00 0.02 gen*RF 2.73 2.11 1.29 rac*ses 0.88 2.65 0.33 race*sses 0.04 0.06 0.63 race*ssize 0.01 0.01 1.53 race*RF 4.32 2.64 1.63 ses*sses 0.02 0.07 0.25 ses*ssize 0.00 0.01 0.38 ses*RF 3.91 3.28 1.19 s ses*ssize 0.00 0.00 1.25 sses*RF 0.03 0.09 0.29 ssize*RF 0.02 0.01 1.93 Random Effects gen 42.57 17.82 2.39 ** race 2.82 17.88 0.16 Tau00 65.28 17.27 3.78 *** Sigma 2310.59 28.07 82.31 *** R 2 within R 2 between .02 .36 p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .0001

PAGE 125

About the Author Heather A. Powell received her Master of Arts degree from American University in 2000, and will receive her Doctor of Philosophy degree in School Psychology from the University of South Florida in 2007. She was the recipient of a graduate training award from USF in 2003. She completed her predoctoral training at the Kennedy Krieger Institute/Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in pediatric and school psychology, and will begin a pos tdoctoral fellowship in the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins Hospital following graduation, providing psychological services to children and adolescents with a variety of medical, emotional, behavioral, and educational iss ues.