William A. Owings & Leslie S.

Kaplan

William A. Owings is an associate professor of education

at Longwood College in Farmville, Virginia. He has been a
teacher, an elementary and a high school principal, an assis-
tant superintendent of schools, and a superintendent of
schools in Virginia.
Leslie S. Kaplan is the assistant principal for instruction at
Denbigh High School in Newport News, Virginia. She has
been a teacher, a guidance counselor, and a central office pro-
grams director. She also is a past Virginia Counselor of the
Year and a past Virginia Assistant Principal of the Year.

Series Editor, Donovan R. Walling

 Alternatives to Retention
and Social Promotion
by
William A. Owings
and
Leslie S. Kaplan

ISBN 0-87367-681-5
Copyright © 2001 by the Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation
Bloomington, Indiana
 This fastback is sponsored by the
Kennesaw Mountain Georgia Chapter
of Phi Delta Kappa International,
which made a generous contribution
toward publication costs.
 Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Retention and Social Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A Short History of Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Current Retention Practice and Research . . . . . 12
Social Promotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Personalizing Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Creating a Positive School Culture . . . . . . . . . . 19
Providing Early Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Fostering Continuity of Teacher-
Learner Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Providing Meaningful Curriculum and
Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Providing Extra Help and Extra Time . . . . . . . . 33
Creating Effective Home-School
Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 Introduction
R etention and social promotion are expensive fail-
ures. The alternative to these failed strategies is to
personalize the learning environment.
Education research repeatedly shows that retention
does not work (Owings and Magliaro 1998; U.S. Depart-
ment of Education 1999). Requiring students to repeat
a grade because they have not met expected perfor-
mance standards — assuming no change in instruc-
tional strategies — leads to continued low achievement,
increases the likelihood of retained students dropping
out, and disproportionately affects minority and
economically disadvantaged students.
Likewise, social promotion is an institutional and in-
dividual failure. Popularly practiced in recent years in
the “presumed interest of a student’s social and psy-
chological well-being, without regard to achievement”
(U.S. Department of Education 1999, p. 5), social pro-
motion keeps students that fail with their age group,
rather than enforce high academic standards for which
students and schools must be accountable. Allowing
students who have not successfully met performance
standards to pass on to the next grade seldom improves
learning or achievement.

7
 So what are schools to do?
Personalizing the learning environment offers
promise. This practice incorporates a number of strate-
gies for preventing academic failure and for providing
extra assistance when students need help meeting aca-
demic expectations. These strategies include creating a
school culture committed to at-risk students’ academic
success, providing interventions to prevent early failure,
offering continuity in teacher and learner relationships,
ensuring a relevant and engaging curriculum and
sound instruction, giving extra time and extra help, and
securing strong parental involvement.
In this fastback we begin by summarizing the prob-
lems with retention and social promotion. Then, as an
alternative to these problematic strategies, we detail
some of the promising strategies for personalizing the
learning environment so that all students can succeed
in school.

8
 Retention and
Social Promotion
M ore than 50 years of research have shown that
grade-level retention provides virtually no acad-
emic advantages to students (Owings and Kaplan 2001;
Owings and Magliaro 1998; Reynolds, Temple, and
McCoy 1997). Recently, grade retention has come under
popular examination yet again. In spite of the research,
Public Agenda’s “Reality Check 2000” noted that a ma-
jority of employers, professors, teachers, parents, and
even students agree that it is better for failing students
to repeat their present grade “to catch up,” rather than
to be promoted to the next grade without having
learned the required skills. In his 1997, 1998, and 1999
State of the Union Addresses, President Clinton called
for increased retention of students who earn low scores
on standardized tests, stating that a child should not
move from grade to grade “until he or she is ready.”
Increased political pressure on schools to demon-
strate student achievement has pushed more and more
educators to retain failing students in order to imple-
ment stricter promotion standards. From 1980 to 1992,
the national percentage of retained students increased
from about 20% to nearly 32% (Roderick 1995). The sim-

9
plistic view of retention as a panacea for education woes
has a negative effect on children.

A Short History of Retention

Teachers in the early United States most often recorded
each student’s learning progress in a narrative report.
Grouping by grades in elementary schools did not be-
come a common practice until the 1860s. Then educa-
tors grouped children of the same age and achievement
by grade levels, wherein students mastered a quota of
content to merit promotion to the next grade. The simple
narrative progress report evolved into a complicated
promotion policy based on a mastery level.
By 1900, defining curriculum content mastery levels
to qualify students for promotion had become difficult.
The New York City School system examined this issue.
Maxwell’s (1904) New York age-grade progress study
became the standard vehicle for school system report-
ing on retention, promotion, and dropouts. This docu-
ment showed a range of student grade-level retention
in New York City of 20% to 70%. During the next two
decades, researchers started to examine the efficacy of
retention in terms of student achievement.
Grade retention was intended to improve school per-
formance by allowing underachieving students more
time to develop adequate academic skills (Reynolds
1992). It did not take long for researchers to realize that
negative effects of retention could outweigh the posi-
tive intent. The federal government began to play an
important role in the investigation of retention and

10
dropouts. In 1908 the Government Printing Office pub-
lished Thorndike’s study that detailed “elimination,”
the then-popular word for dropouts. This study showed
the association of grade-level retention and “student
elimination” from school. It also showed that 81.7% of
U.S. students entering school between 1900 and 1904
were “eliminated” before the ninth grade.
In the 1930s several researchers reported the negative
effects of retention on achievement (Ayer 1933; Kline 1933;
Nifenecker and Campbell 1937; Otto and Melby 1935).
Goodlad (1954) summarized the research between 1924
and 1948 relating to grade retention and showed that re-
tention did not decrease the variation in student achieve-
ment levels and had no positive effect on educational gain.
Otto (1951) also suggested that repeating grades had no
special educational value for children, demonstrating that
the academic gain of retained students was smaller than
the gain of promoted matched counterparts.
Midway through the 20th century there was a resur-
gence of interest in research on the relationship between
retention and dropouts. Berlman (1949) indicated that
retained students tended to drop out of school more
frequently than those not retained. The study also de-
termined that many of the participants who had expe-
rienced grade-level retention and then dropped out
were as intelligent as, or more intelligent than, those
who eventually graduated. This article appeared in a
period when the literature was starting to emphasize
the need to keep students in school.
However, it is interesting to note that the 1960 third
edition of the American Educational Research Associa-

11
tion’s Encyclopedia of Educational Research still referred
to grade retention as “retarded progress” (p. 4), and the
topic was indexed under “retardation” (Harris 1960).
In the 1960s and 1970s, the pendulum moved toward
social promotion, passing failing students to the next
grade to keep them with their age group. Advancing
them with their peers, educators reasoned, would ben-
efit weaker students psychologically and socially; and
these students would likely “catch up” academically
with increasing maturity and motivation. In the 1980s
the pendulum swung back. The public began to lose
confidence in schools, partly because of stories of vio-
lence, poor teaching performance, and poor student
achievement. In 1983 a panel of education and political
leaders determined that the U.S. public school system
was placing our nation “at risk” (National Commission
on Excellence in Education 1983). As a result, many
school systems instituted more stringent promotion and
retention policies in spite of the lack of research evidence
to support such changes (Roderick 1994). To the public,
however, it was counter-intuitive to think that retention
would not help students to catch up (Natale 1991).

Current Retention Practice and Research

Although no precise national data indicate the exact
number of retained students, the retention practice
continues and may have increased in American schools
despite the lack of supportive research. One study re-
ported that by the ninth grade, approximately 50% of
all American students have been retained at least one

12
time (Center for Policy Research in Education 1990).
Another study (Roderick 1995) reported that the pro-
portion of over-age students entering high school has
risen almost 40% since 1975. One synthesis of research
on grade retention indicated that the current level of
grade retention matches that of the early 20th century
(Shepard and Smith 1990).
We reviewed 66 articles on retention written in the
1990s. Only one study (Lenarduzzi 1990) mildly sup-
ported retention practices; however, a follow-up evalu-
ation refuted the earlier findings (Lenarduzzi and
McLaughlin 1992). The remaining 65 articles did not
support the practice of retention. For this discussion, the
research can be placed into five categories: the dropout
connection, demographics, early retention, social impli-
cations, and achievement implications.
The connection between retention and dropping out
of school is still evident and consistent after almost 50
years of research. One writer stated that a heart-attack
victim had a better chance of surviving than a child who
has been retained has of completing high school
(Frymier 1990). Many studies, more than 80 years after
Thorndike, show the association between retention and
dropping out of school. These studies control for the ef-
fects of other factors that influence the decision to drop
out. Grissom and Shepard (1989), for example, deter-
mined that retention significantly increased the proba-
bility of dropping out of school, controlling for prior
achievement, sex, and race.
Retained students come more often from lower socio-
economic (SES) backgrounds than do non-retained stu-

13
dents (Thomas et al. 1992). Meisels and Liaw (1993)
found that approximately 40% of repeaters came from
the lowest SES quartile, while only 8.5% came from the
highest SES quartile. Meisels and Liaw also determined
that more than two-thirds of all retentions take place
between kindergarten and third grade. Other studies
have shown that retained students more often tend to
be male and African-American and come from homes
of less-educated parents than do non-retained students
(Byrd and Weitzman 1994; Dauber et al. 1993; Foster
1993; Meisels and Liaw 1993). A study for the state of
California (George 1993) found that retention rates for
African-Americans and Hispanics were twice the rate
for whites.
Byrd and Weitzman (1994) also examined social and
health factors associated with retention. Poverty,
gender, mother’s education level, hearing and speech
impairments, low birth weight, enuresis, and house-
hold smoking exposure were significant factors in
predicting retention. Learning disabled students also
may be retained more frequently than the general pop-
ulation (McLeskey, Lancaser, and Grizzle 1995).
For years a common belief was that the earlier a stu-
dent was retained, the more effective retention would
be. However, the idea that early retention is best for stu-
dents continues to be refuted in the literature (Johnson
et al. 1990; Mantizicopoulos and Morrison 1992;
Thomas et al. 1992). Studies of retention in kindergarten
indicate that retained students performed significantly
lower on standardized achievement tests than did other
students who were not retained (Dennebaum and Kul-

14
berg 1994). Another study showed no differences in
achievement for retained kindergarten students and the
matched control group (Shepard and Smith 1987). Some
research indicates that early retention may have a short-
lived increase in achievement; however, this increase
vanishes in two or three years (Butler 1990; Karweit and
Wasik 1992; Snyder 1992).
The professional literature continues to demonstrate
the negative social implications of retention. Kindergar-
ten students who were retained indicate a slightly more
negative attitude toward school than did a matched con-
trol group (Shepard and Smith 1987). Retained students
may have more behavioral problems than those who
are not retained (Meisels and Liaw 1993). Rumberger
(1987) suggests that retention contributes to a perma-
nent disengagement from school.
Retention also may have negative effects on long-
term student achievement. Holmes’ (1989) meta-analy-
sis was definitive in the area of grade-level retention
and achievement. He reviewed 63 controlled studies
comparing retained student progress with lower-
achieving promoted students’ progress. Fifty-four
studies showed negative achievement results for re-
tained students. Holmes then reviewed only those
studies with the greatest statistical control. The negative
achievement effects again appeared. These findings
appear substantively identical to Goodlad’s 1954 analy-
sis. Subsequent studies have shown little new evidence
to contradict Holmes’ research synthesis.
Other studies indicate an increased, cumulative neg-
ative effect of retention on achievement for at-risk stu-

15
dents (Reynolds 1992). Retained children may continue
to decline in academic achievement over time compared
with non-retained students in reading. Some question
remains as to whether this cumulative decline is seen in
math achievement.

Social Promotion
Social promotion began in the early 1960s as a well-
intentioned misapplication of the retention literature.
The research findings were clear: Retention has virtu-
ally no positive effects for children, non-retained
children achieved as much or more than their retained
counterparts, and retained children were at risk of drop-
ping out of school. Then why not move children along
the grade levels? This logic became increasingly per-
suasive in schools. Social promotion appealed to the
nurturing side of most educators. Retention damaged
student self-esteem. Moving a child along helped the
child socially, did not appear to harm the child acade-
mically, and did not place a student at risk for dropping
out. Social promotion provided a simplistic alternative
to retention with a positive public relations spin for par-
ents: Over-age students would not be in the regular
classroom to “corrupt” younger students.
But a new problem arose. Research did not address
what would happen when students learned they were
not accountable. The earlier studies on retention did not
control for the long-term effects on motivation and
learning. With time, some students saw that they would
be promoted without academic effort on their part.

16
Teachers were the first to see the effect this had on stu-
dents who worked diligently to achieve. Parents began
to perceive that education was being “diluted” to ac-
commodate the self-esteem of nonproductive students.
Also, many socially promoted students could not
connect to the learning requirements of the next grade
because of significant skill and knowledge deficits.
Increasingly, they could not comprehend instruction
because they lacked the cognitive skills from prior learn-
ing. As a result, they continued to fail.
In 1983 the publication of A Nation at Risk galvanized
public sentiment against some of the counter-intuitive
practices in education, social promotion being the chief
one. Social promotion became a political touchstone for
presidential candidates. By 1995, anti-social-promotion
platforms had won bipartisan support (Viadero 2000a).
And now, when everyone is touting high standards and
we have entered an era of high-stakes testing, political
pressure is intense for retention and against social pro-
motion. But, in fact, both practices are failures.

Summary
The real issue lies in finding alternatives to failed
practices. Historically, educators considered retention
as a means to reduce skill variance in the classroom in
an attempt to meet students’ learning needs. Clearly,
based on this brisk walk through retention research, this
practice does not work. In the process, we have harmed
our clients. Educators would do well to take an oath
similar to that of physicians — first, do no harm.

17
Retention harms an at-risk population both cognitive-
ly and affectively.
Retention and social promotion are expensive insti-
tutional and individual failures. Alternatives should be
considered that vigorously prevent and promptly rem-
edy students’ learning difficulties, providing increased
opportunities for their success.
Effective systemic and instructional alternatives exist
that can prevent much student failure and keep them
learning. All students can achieve standards if educa-
tors vary the time, pace, curriculum, learning style, and
assessment techniques and tailor students’ learning
experiences to their needs. This is, essentially, person-
alizing learning.

18
Personalizing Learning
P ersonalizing the learning environment consists of sev-
eral promising strategies for preventing academic
failure and for providing extra assistance when students
need help meeting academic expectations. Research in-
dicates six ways that the learning environment can be
personalized, thereby significantly reducing the need
for retention and social promotion. These include:
• Creating a positive school culture.
• Providing early intervention to prevent school fail-
ure.
• Fostering continuity of teacher-learner relation-
ships.
• Providing meaningful curriculum and instruction.
• Providing extra help and extra time.
• Creating effective home-school partnerships.
Each of these strategies merits a brief discussion.

Creating a Positive School Culture

Beginning in the 1980s, researchers argued that low-
achieving, alienated students required a school culture
of high expectation for all students’ achievement with-

19
in a caring community (Cuban 1989; Hargreaves and
Fullan 1998; Phillips 1997; Walmsley and Allington
1995). An academically rigorous and supportive school
culture motivates many students, especially impover-
ished, low-achieving, and disinterested students, to
attend school and learn (Comer et al. 1996; Payne 1997).
Cawelti’s (1999b) Benchmark Schools Study identi-
fies five critical practices observed in schools that report
high student achievement with at-risk students: 1) A
schoolwide focus on clear standards and on efforts
to improve results, 2) committed staff, 3) teamwork,
4) principal leadership, and 5) multiple sustained
changes to improve student achievement.
Clear and High Standards. Successful schools set clear
standards for students to meet at key grades, explicitly
stating what students should know and be able to do,
with periodic benchmarks to help measure progress
(Codding and Rothman 1999; Navarro and Natalicio
1999). Likewise, these schools regularly measure stu-
dent achievement and use these data to improve results.
In addition, successful schools set unequivocal ex-
pectations for families and communities, and the com-
munity holds schools accountable by publicly reporting
school performance, rewarding school improvement,
and intervening in low-performing schools (U.S.
Department of Education 1999).
Committed Staff. Schools with personalized cultures
support high achievement for all students, and the
entire staff welcomes all students and their families
(Allington and McGill-Franzen 1995; Cawelti 1999a;

20
Cuban 1989). Teachers genuinely like at-risk students,
want to work with them, and understand their back-
grounds. Everyone holds a failure-prevention orientation
and accepts responsibility for each student’s academic
success. Faculty recognizes the critical relationship be-
tween how they present their material and how well
their students will understand it and apply it to new sit-
uations. Teachers believe that if they thoroughly under-
stand their academic disciplines and their learners’
natures, their students can learn anything (DeLamater
1999). They also believe that student effort, achievement,
and improvement — not measured ability — determine
student learning (Collopy and Green 1995).
Professional Teamwork. Helping all learners meet high
standards requires teachers working together. Collab-
oration between regular and special educators ensures
that weaker learners, with or without labels, have access
to rigorous curricula and classroom interventions. Core
teams of teachers, administrators, counselors, parents,
and resource educators regularly meet to discuss and
monitor ways to increase individual students’ achieve-
ment with classroom modifications and available
resources. In addition, the schools’ infrastructure in-
cludes time for teachers to plan together (Virginia
Department of Education 1999; Walmsley and Allington
1995).
Principal Leadership. When principals influence school
goals, raise academic expectations, maximize instruc-
tional organization, maintain an orderly and caring
school environment, monitor student progress, and

21
participate visibly in daily school events, more students
learn.
Multiple Sustained Changes. Learning is a complex ac-
tivity, and many factors affect it. Schools successful with
at-risk learners make many changes in organizational
structure, curriculum, and teaching and learning prac-
tices to increase the academic achievement of their at-
risk students. For example, school size matters for many
at-risk students, so successful learning climates for at-
risk students are frequently small, structured, and
caring (Cawelti 1999b; Cuban 1989; Klonsky and
Klonsky 1999; McPartland et al. 1997; Meier 1996). These
schools contain approximately 200 students with class
sizes ranging from 15 to 20 pupils. Whether housed in
a small building or structured into small interactive
units — such as schools-within-schools, interdiscipli-
nary teams, “houses,” or “academies” — educators and
students get to know each other very well. The “fami-
ly feeling” encourages warm and trusting relationships
among administrators, teachers, and students (Cawelti
1999b, p. 15).

Providing Early Intervention

Slavin and Madden point out that “Learning deficits
easiest to remediate are those that never occur in the
first place,” (1989, p.6). A growing body of evidence
refutes the idea that school failure is inevitable for any
except the most mentally undeveloped children
(Cawelti 1999a; Slavin, Karweit, and Wasik 1992/93;
Slavin and Madden 1989; U.S. Department of Education

22
1999). Success in reading in early grades does not
guarantee later school success; but it does prevent the
negative spiral of remediation, retention, and social
promotion that reading failure brings.
Early interventions likely to have the greatest impact
on preventing student failure and increasing the likeli-
hood of school success include programs from birth to
age three, preschool programs, kindergarten programs,
and elementary programs.

Programs from Birth to Preschool. High-quality early

childhood programs with developmentally appropri-
ate learning experiences for three- and four-year-olds
have been shown to result in substantially improved stu-
dent achievement (Cawelti 1999a; Roberson 1997/98).
At-risk students have much to gain by participating in
well-designed early learning experiences.
From birth to age three, child-based interventions
with infants and toddlers place them in stimulating, de-
velopmentally appropriate environments for part of the
day. Family involvement is one of the keys to preschool
success (Pool 1997/98; Roberson 1997/98). Family-
centered interventions give parents training and mate-
rials to help them stimulate their children’s cognitive
development, help with discipline and health issues,
and assist with their own vocational and home-man-
agement skills (Comer 1980; Slavin, Karweit, and Wasik
1992/93). Although it takes intensive interventions
several years to produce lasting effects on measures of
cognitive functioning, even short-term effects benefit
children’s learning.

23
 Similarly, preschool experiences for four-year-olds
have merit as part of a comprehensive approach to pre-
vent early school failure. The important skills needed
for literacy develop before children enter kindergarten,
and they do not develop spontaneously; instruction
shapes them (Bodrova, Leong, and Paynter 1999). One
study shows that high-quality preschool programs can
cut poor children’s lifetime arrest rate in half and can
significantly improve their educational and subsequent
economic success by age 23 (Schweinhart and Weikart
1998). Another study (Roberson 1997/98) shows simi-
lar preschool students have achievement gains when
compared in later elementary school with peers with-
out preschool experiences. Preschool experiences have
immediate and short-term effects on children’s
measured abilities and are related to students’ likeli-
hood of not being retained and not receiving referrals
for special education placement in later grades (Slavin,
Karweit, and Wasik 1992/93) and not dropping out of
school (Berrueta-Clement et al. 1984; Slavin and Mad-
den 1989). However, though attending a high-quality
preschool program has long-term benefits for children,
it is usually not enough by itself to prevent early school
failure for at-risk children (Slavin, Karweit, and Wasik
1992/93; Slavin and Madden 1989).

Kindergarten and Primary Grade Programs. Full-day

kindergarten programs that use research-based curric-
ulum and instruction and parental involvement in-
crease students’ social and formal language skills over
participation in half-time kindergartens. These gains,

24
unfortunately, are not maintained beyond the end of
first grade (Slavin, Karweit, and Wasik 1992/93; Slavin
and Madden 1989).
Because serious consequences result from failing to
learn to read in the early grades, one-to-one tutoring for
first-graders appears to be the most effective approach
for preventing early reading failure (Slavin, Karweit,
and Wasik 1992/93). Several popular programs that use
teachers as tutors, such as Success for All (Slavin and
Madden 1989; Slavin, Karweit, and Wasik 1992/93;
Viadero 1999), Reading Recovery (Pinnell, Deford, and
Lyons 1988), and Prevention of Learning Disabilities
(Silver and Hagin 1990), have the largest and longest-
lasting effects. One study finds that Success for All cut
referrals to special education by 50% (Slavin 1996).
When tutoring is combined with other interventions,
such as high-quality preschool and full-day kindergar-
ten, research-based curriculum and instructional meth-
ods in all grades, nongraded organization for reading,
and parental involvement and support, students make
and keep greater academic gains (Slavin, Karweit, and
Wasik 1992/93).
Research on early grades interventions demonstrates
that educators can help children enter fourth grade
reading, regardless of family or personal backgrounds.
At the same time, Slavin and his colleagues (1992/93,
p. 16) note that:
intensive early interventions for at-risk children with no
follow-up in improved instruction is unlikely to produce
lasting gains. . . . Intensive early interventions followed
by long-term (inexpensive) improvements in instruction

25
 and other services can produce substantial and lasting
gains.
At all grade levels, reading problems are the most
frequent and serious reason for student failure. Thus
teachers must be prepared to use successful research-
based practices to teach reading.

Fostering Continuity of
Teacher-Learner Relationships
Personalizing learning with varied relationship-based
strategies appears to advance at-risk learners’ achieve-
ment. These approaches include looping, multi-age
organization, cooperative learning, academic tutoring,
mentoring, and advising. These relationship-based
techniques, while frequently used in early grades, also
succeed in middle and high school.
Looping and Multi-age Organization. At-risk learners
often benefit from extended time with the same teacher
(Little and Dacus 1999; Rasmussen 1998). In looping or
multiyear teaching, one teacher works with a common
group of students for two or three years. With fewer
transitions to make each September, more teaching and
learning occur.
Multi-age or nongraded primary school organiza-
tions group students across grade lines according to their
skill levels and move them through a hierarchy of skills
at their own pace. Multi-age groups may also include
teams of up to five teachers who facilitate learning with
groups of 150 students for at least six years, instead of
losing touch with each class after each year (Egol 1999).

26
 Instructionally, both looping and multi-age grouping
help teachers better understand and meet their stu-
dents’ individual learning needs. The time together in-
creases opportunities for students to receive individual
teacher feedback to enhance learning. Because teachers
promptly identify and remedy early learning needs,
students do not lose ground relative to classmates.
Moreover, the extended time together helps teachers
postpone high-stakes decisions about retention or social
promotion while they work to maximize each student’s
learning and achievement (Rasmussen 1998).
Equally important, continuity builds strong bonds of
mutual respect and trust between students and teach-
ers, creating classrooms that resemble “extended fami-
lies” (Cuban 1989, p. 31). Students feel belonging to a
group and a supportive environment, and group cohe-
sion contributes to the students’ learning successes
(Comer 1980). Likewise, the continuous contact improves
teachers’ relationships with parents because they work
together for several years.
Research finds that simply regrouping students
across grade lines for reading and math instruction in
small groups increases students’ achievement (Slavin,
Karweit, and Wasik 1992/93). Research also suggests
that multi-age groupings within and across classrooms
have positive effects on students’ motivation and learn-
ing (Cuban 1989).

Cooperative Learning. Cooperative learning groups

place students together in small learning teams to master
material initially presented by the teacher. When team

27
members receive rewards based on the learning of each
team member, cooperative learning methods can be
consistently effective in increasing student achievement
(Cuban 1989; Slavin and Madden 1989). Not only must
teachers direct and structure student work groups to en-
sure the best learning and social relations for the groups,
they also must supplement peer-mediated activities
with professional interventions to address individual
learning needs (Fuchs et al. 1997).
Academic Tutoring. Academic tutoring is an effective
and highly personalized intervention that increases at-
risk students’ learning (Cawelti 1999a; Fashola and
Slavin 1997; Slavin and Madden 1989; Slavin, Karweit,
and Wasik 1992/93). Pairing at-risk learners with a
trained adult (often a licensed teacher) or older peer
helps to adapt learning to the learner’s own pace, learn-
ing style, and comprehension.
Furthermore, tutoring at-risk students builds posi-
tive relationships between students and tutors. With
shared experiences over time, respect and trust grow.
The caring bonds motivate enhanced student learning,
while practicing and using new skills and knowledge
increases the student’s classroom competence.
Mentoring. Mentoring pairs at-risk learners with a car-
ing adult or older peer for tutoring, academic assistance,
career preparation, or successful role modeling to learn
problem solving. Mentoring often includes attending
sports events, sharing meals, and participating in com-
munity and cultural activities that the student might not
experience without the mentor’s involvement.

28
 Advising. Advising pairs students with adults outside
the classroom, usually teachers or school counselors,
who have responsibility for the students’ total educa-
tional experience. Working one-on-one, they build a
caring and trusting relationship that permits them to
design and monitor the student’s personalized learning
plan. Both understand the student’s learning style, the
family situation, and academic strengths and weak-
nesses; and they use these data to set personal goals and
make educational decisions. In addition, advisors serve
as guides and advocates for at-risk students with other
educators, parents, and community agencies.
When the mutual confidence and respect found in these
relationship-based strategies link with clear instructional
goals, attention to the student’s learning needs, and
prompt feedback used to improve learning, at-risk stu-
dents feel motivated and supported in learning.

Providing Meaningful Curriculum

and Instruction
Personalizing learning environments increases at-
risk students’ desires and efforts to learn. “Engaged”
students show time on task, persistence, concentration,
enthusiasm, and care for their work (Schlechty 1990).
Unfortunately, the percentage of students seriously
disengaged from their own learning as they progress
through the grades is increasing (Hargreaves and Fullan
1998). At-risk students’ prior failures make them want
to avoid — physically, mentally, and emotionally — new
situations in which they are likely to fail. In addition,

29
middle and high school students’ social and outside
interests compete with academic content for their
attention (Newmann 1989).
Five factors contribute to students’ academic en-
gagement: 1) need for competence, 2) extrinsic rewards,
3) intrinsic interest, 4) social support, and 5) sense of
ownership (Newmann 1989). Educators mindful of
these factors can create personalized learning experi-
ences to motivate their at-risk students.
Need for Competence. Most young people need to have
enough cognitive understanding and skill mastery to
affect their world. Feeling competent brings a sense of
control — rather than helplessness — over one’s life.
Extrinsic Rewards. At-risk students are not necessari-
ly motivated by the high grades, college admission,
well-paying jobs, and teacher or peer approval that typ-
ically attract high-achieving peers. Their engagement
increases only when they believe that their school
achievement will lead to rewards that they value and
that their own efforts will lead to that attainment (New-
mann 1989).
Intrinsic Interest. Intrinsic interests are naturally
meaningful. However, those having the greatest trouble
in school often take the narrowest view about what is
worth learning (Firestone 1989). Teachers must make
the connections between classroom content and the stu-
dents’ own lives clear and appealing.
Social Support. Unless at-risk students trust teachers
and peers to respect them as learners, weaker students

30
will avoid embarrassment by not trying, and thus not
failing.
Sense of Ownership. Finally, at-risk students are more
likely to invest in schoolwork when they have some
choice and control over what they learn, how they learn
it, and how its mastery will be assessed. Student owner-
ship of learning is especially critical for at-risk learners,
who generally feel no control over their achievement
apart from their refusal to participate.
A growing body of research finds that teacher exper-
tise is one of the more important school factors influenc-
ing student achievement. A relationship exists between
students’ interest, investment, and success in their
schoolwork and their teachers’ repertoire of techniques
for engaging them (Darling-Hammond 1999; Hill and
Crevola 1999; Viadero 2000b; Wolfe 1998).
Students learn more when their teachers use engag-
ing instructional practices. Teachers should understand
the subject matter so thoroughly that they can provide
students with appropriate intellectual challenges, orga-
nize the content to help students develop cognitive
maps, and differentiate instruction. They should assess
each low-achieving student’s particular learning needs
and then develop and use individualized learning plans.
According to Shelor and Hohmann (1995), teachers
can increase their students’ psychological investment in
learning with these instructional practices:
1. Clearly articulated expectations about what stu-
dents will learn, the qualities of the final product,
and the time frame for learning it.

31
2. A safe and nonthreatening learning environment
where students can learn from their mistakes with-
out embarrassment or penalty.
3. Personal relevance in the curriculum so it relates
to the students’ own interests or life experiences.
4. Choice in what students study, with whom they
study it, and in the manner in which they present
their learning.
5. Students work together to practice and apply
learning to solve problems or create products or
performances.
6. Novelty in the variety of learning activities avail-
able over time.
7. Frequent and affirming teacher feedback to
correct, encourage, or validate the student’s learn-
ing progress.
8. Students make learning immediately useful and
relevant to solve a problem or to create a product
or performance.
Students also will learn more when teachers:
• Provide direct instruction for very specific skills
and knowledge. To be fully effective, direct instruc-
tion must be combined with meaningful content
connected to students’ own life experiences and
prior learning and must actively include reasoning
and critical thinking (Cuban 1989).
• Conduct ongoing and varied formative and summa-
tive assessments of student learning. The information
should be used diagnostically for instructional plan-
ning for individual students, as well as for the class

32
 as a whole; for providing feedback to students that
they can use; and for determining student mastery
(Darling-Hammond 1999; Hill and Crevola 1999).
• Align the taught and tested curriculum to ensure
that all students have an opportunity to learn the
content and skills on which their academic progress
will be measured (Hill and Crevola 1999).
• Remain sensitive to students’ different cultures,
language needs, gender differences, and other ex-
periences that shape background knowledge and
use this knowledge to increase the curriculum’s per-
sonal meaning and relevance for students (Shelor
and Hohmann 1995; Hill and Crevola 1999).
• Use the variety of curriculum resources and tech-
nologies (Danielson 1996).
• Collaborate with colleagues to bring extra profes-
sional supports and resources to student learning
(Darling-Hammond 1999).
• Regularly analyze and reflect on their own work,
determine its effect on student learning, and
modify future instruction as students responses in-
dicate (Danielson 1996; Darling-Hammond 1999).
Sound instructional practices, along with the respect-
ful and trusting relationships between teachers and stu-
dents, create the safe and intellectually challenging
classrooms that keep at-risk students learning.

Providing Extra Help and Extra Time

At-risk learners often need extra time and extra help
in order to meet high achievement standards. Identify-

33
ing and intervening as soon as possible provides the
most successful way to keep these students progressing
academically (Norton 1990; U.S. Department of Educa-
tion 1999).
Strategies for providing extra time and help include
academic tutoring and mentoring, increased learning
time during the school day, increased learning time be-
fore and after the school day, increased days in the
school year, and alternative schools.

Tutoring and Mentoring. Academic tutoring and men-

toring offer effective and highly personalized interven-
tions that increase student learning (Cawelti 1999a;
Fashola and Slavin 1997; Slavin, Karweit, and Wasik
1992/93). Both approaches provide extra learning time
for at-risk students focused on the learner’s particular
academic and social needs.

Innovative School Schedules. Increased learning time

helps at-risk learners by giving them more occasions to
master essential skills and knowledge. For example,
students can receive extended learning within the reg-
ular school day with block scheduling. Longer class pe-
riods give at-risk learners enough time to receive small
chunks of information, practice it under direct teacher
supervision, receive prompt and specific individual
feedback about its correctness, and use the feedback
immediately to increase learning. The repeated chances
to practice the new material correctly and meaningful-
ly make it more likely for the at-risk student to remem-
ber and use it again later.

34
 Before- and After-School Programs. Schools and com-
munity organizations increase learning time by offering
supervised before- and after-school programs. Either
on-site or in the neighborhood, these centers can offer
homework assistance and tutoring, as well as refresh-
ments and recreation for students. Homework clubs in
community centers or churches offer similar assistance
for increased learning time.
Year-Round Schools. In this increasingly popular
school calendar, schools have longer breaks throughout
the school year and shorter vacations in the summer.
Students continue learning and applying their learning
without long vacations in which to forget what they
learned. Instead of a six-week review in September and
October, students gain up to six weeks of extra learning
time from this revised school schedule.
Summer School. Summer school, either optional or re-
quired, offers at-risk students additional learning time
to catch up with classmates (Aidman 1997/98; U.S.
Department of Education 1999). Students can repeat
courses previously failed during the school year or
focus on essential skills and knowledge that the student
needs to pass barrier exams or meet grade-level expec-
tations. With innovative scheduling that permits slower
or failing students to immediately retake a course dur-
ing the regular school year, summer school offers time
to finish the previous year’s requirements, permitting
students to start the new academic year on time.
Extending Time in High School Before Graduation.
Another approach to extending learning time for at-risk

35
students involves adding extra time to high school by
changing a student’s grade placement (Grant and
Richardson 1999). This extended time may involve
evenings, extra work, summer school, or another semes-
ter to prevent failure in grade. Working with an at-risk
student and parents or guardians, the education team
reviews the students’ learning needs and determines if
the student can make satisfactory academic progress
with additional school time. If all agree, they adjust the
student’s schedule to delay graduation.

Alternative Programs. Alternative programs, including

transitional and dropout prevention programs for mid-
dle and high school students, offer more personalized
learning environments, structural and program innova-
tions, and more time to meet grade-level competencies
needed for rigorous high school study.
Successful alternative programs share small size,
clear entry and exit criteria, unambiguous academic
standards, explicit behavioral and attire expectations,
and small classes where students and teachers work
closely together (Raywid 1995; U.S. Department of Edu-
cation 1999). Students, teachers, and parents want to be
there, and they create a caring learning “community.”
Teachers effectively diagnose and teach to the student’s
learning needs, making learning challenging and en-
gaging. Students often work together collaboratively.
An atmosphere of mutual respect, trust, and support
encourages continued attendance and learning.
Family involvement and intensive counseling are
critical components of alternative programs. Parents

36
may be required to communicate frequently with teach-
ers about their child’s progress and to assist their child
with studying. Families also may be expected to join
their children in enjoyable school events, attend plays
and student performances, or participate in family games
nights. Likewise, schools connect at-risk students with
professional school counselors to learn and practice im-
proved problem solving.

Creating Effective Home-School

Partnerships
Effective partnerships between teachers and parents
are essential components in creating successful learning
for at-risk students. Schools showing the greatest
achievements for at-risk students also show strong ties
between parents and teachers in ways that actively sup-
port student learning. Family behaviors in a school-home
community are far more critical to students’ level of learn-
ing than is the family’s poverty level (Redding 1997).
Many parents do not know what they can do to help
their children learn. Literacy projects can help parents
learn strategies to help their children read better and
become more successful in school. Parent centers pro-
vide welcoming places in school for parents to meet
with educators and resource persons. They can discuss
child-rearing and learning issues and make referrals to
community services (Fowler and Corley 1996). In addi-
tion, having someone in the school who is multilingual
and is available to work with parents can build bridges
between families and schools (Halford 1996).

37
 Schools with large at-risk populations may become
“full service schools,” which bring social services agen-
cies and educators together. For example, when there
are health clinics in schools, the schools report better
attendance, lower dropout rates, and fewer teen preg-
nancies (Dryfoos 1996).
Whatever the learning challenges for at-risk students,
effective and caring educators must find meaningful
ways to connect with parents. They should extend invi-
tations to the school and provide outreach activities in
the communities. They must listen to parents’ concerns,
not just tell about the school’s agenda (Brandt 1998).
Parents have a powerful influence on their children’s
learning that educators can use to promote academic
success for at-risk students.

38
 Conclusion
T he best alternative to retention and social promo-
tion is to ensure that all students learn successfully
in the first place. Personalized learning environments
in schools and classrooms help at-risk students succeed.
Personalization occurs when a school is committed to
high achievement from at-risk learners; when op-
portunities are presented for early prevention of school
failure; when at-risk students and teachers know, trust,
and respect each other; when at-risk students find cur-
ricula meaningful and relevant; when instructional
practices increase at-risk students’ personal investment
in learning; when extra time and extra help are provided
to support learning; and when there is strong parental
involvement in students’ academic progress.
Meaningful instruction taught by competent teachers
in caring school environments contributes to all students’
academic achievement. Helping all at-risk students
become competent learners prevents the need for re-
tention and social promotion. And retention and social
promotion are practices that our clients, our profession,
and our nation can no longer afford.

39
 References
Aidman, B.J. “How Summer School Can Provide a Jump Start
for Students.” Educational Leadership 55 (December 1997/
January 1998): 64-68.
Allington, R.L., and McGill-Franzen, A. “Flunking: Throwing
Good Money After Bad.” In No Quick Fix: Rethinking Liter-
acy Programs in America’s Elementary Schools, edited by R.L.
Allington and S.A. Walmsley. New York: Teachers College
Press. 1995.
Ayer, F.C. Progress of Pupils in the State of Texas, 1932-33. Austin:
Texas State Teachers Association, 1933.
Berlman, M. “Why Boys and Girls Leave School.” American
Teacher 20 (1949): 33-39.
Berrueta-Clement, J.R.; Schweinhart, L.J.; Barnett, W.S.;
Epstein, A.S.; and Weikart, D.P. Changed Lives. Ypsilanti,
Mich: High/Scope, 1984.
Bodrova, E.; Leong, D.J.; and Paynter, D.E. “Literacy Stan-
dards for Preschool Learners.” Educational Leadership 57
(October 1999): 42-46.
Brandt, R. “Listen First.” Educational Leadership 55 (May 1998):
25-30.
Butler, J. “Effects of Retention on Achievement and Self-Con-
cept in Kindergarten and First Grade Students.” Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, 1990.

40
Byrd, R., and Weitzman, M. “Predictors of Early Grade Re-
tention Among Children in the United States.” Pediatrics
93 (March 1994): 481-87.
Cawelti, G. “Improving Achievement: Finding Research-
Based Practices and Programs that Boost Student Achieve-
ment.” American School Board Journal 186 (July 1999): 34-37.
a
Cawelti, G. Portraits of Six Benchmark Schools: Diverse Ap-
proaches to Improving Student Achievement. Arlington, Va.:
Educational Research Service, 1999. b
Center for Policy Research in Education. Repeating Grades in
School: Current Practice and Research Evidence Policy Briefs.
Washington, D.C., 1990.
Codding, J.B., and Rothman, R. “Just Passing Through: The
Life of an American High School.” In The New American
High School, edited by D.D. Marsh and J.B Codding. Thou-
sand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin, 1999.
Collopy, R.B., and Green, T. “Using Motivational Theory with
At-Risk Children.” Educational Leadership 53 (September
1995): 37-40.
Comer, J. School Power: Implications of an Intervention Project.
New York: Free Press, 1980.
Comer, J.P., et al. Rallying the Whole Village: The Comer Process
for Reforming Education. New York: Teachers College Press,
1996.
Cuban, L. “At-Risk Students: What Teachers and Principals
Can Do.” Educational Leadership 46 (February 1989): 29-32.
Danielson, C. Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for
Teaching. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 1996.
Darling-Hammond, L. “Educating Teachers for the Next Cen-
tury: Rethinking Practice and Policy.” In The Education of
Teachers: Ninety-Eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the

41
 Study of Education, Part I, edited by G. Griffin. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1999.
Dauber, S., et al. “Characteristics of Retainees and Early
Precursors of Retention in Grade: Who Is Held Back?”
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 39 (July 1993): 326-43.
DeLamater, W.E. “An American Classic at 40.” Education
Week, 15 December 1999, pp. 39, 42.
Dennebaum, J.M., and Kulberg, J.M. “Kindergarten Reten-
tion and Transition Classrooms: Their Relationship to
Achievement.” Psychology in the Schools 31 (January 1994):
5-12.
Dryfoos, J.G. “Full-Service Schools.” Educational Leadership 53
(April 1996): 18-23.
Egol, M. “Transforming Education.” Education Week, 15
December 1999, pp. 38, 42.
Fashola, O.S., and Slavin, R.E. “Promising Programs for
Elementary and Middle Schools: Evidence of Effectiveness
and Replicability.” Journal of Education for Students Placed
at Risk 2, no. 3 (1997): 251-307.
Firestone, W.A. “Beyond Order and Expectations in High
Schools Serving At-Risk Youth.” Educational Leadership 46
(February 1989): 41-45.
Foster, J. “Reviews of Research: Retaining Children in Grade.”
Childhood Education 70 (Fall 1993): 38-43.
Fowler, R.C., and Corley, K.K. “Linking Families, Building
Communities.” Educational Leadership 53 (April 1996): 24-
26.
Frymier, J. “A Tale of Two Crises.” Principal 69 (January 1990):
52-53.
Fuchs L.S., et al. “Enhancing Students’ Helping Behavior
During Peer-Mediated Instruction with Conceptual Math-
ematical Explanations.” Elementary School Journal 97 (Jan-
uary 1997): 223-49.

42
George, C. Beyond Retention: A Study of Retention Rates,
Practices, and Successful Alternatives in California. Sacramen-
to: California Department of Education, 1993.
Goodlad, J. “Some Effects of Promotion and Non-Promotion
upon the Social and Personal Adjustment of Children.”
Journal of Experimental Education 22 (1954): 301-28.
Grant, J., and Richardson, I. “When Your Students Need One
More Year.” High School Magazine 7 (December 1999): 8-13.
Grissom, J.B., and Shepard, L.A. “Repeating and Dropping
Out of School.” In Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on
Retention, edited by L. Shepard and M. Smith. New York:
Falmer Press, 1989.
Halford, J.M. “How Parent Liaisons Connect Families to
School.” Educational Leadership 53 (April 1996): 34-36.
Hargreaves, A., and Fullan, M. What’s Worth Fighting for Out
There? New York: Teachers College Press, 1998.
Harris, C.W. “Accelerated and Retarded Progress.” In Ency-
clopedia of Educational Research: A Project of the American
Educational Research Association, edited by Chester W.
Harris. New York: Macmillan, 1960.
Hill, P., and Crevola, C. “The Role of Standards in Educational
Reform for the 21st Century.” In Preparing Our Schools for
the 21st Century, edited by D.D. Marsh. ASCD 1999 Year-
book. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 1999.
Holmes, C.T. “Grade Level Retention Effects: A Meta-
Analysis of Research Studies.” In Flunking Grades: Research
and Policies on Retention, edited by L.A. Shepard and M.L.
Smith. New York: Falmer Press, 1989.
Johnson, E., et al. “The Effects of Early Retention on the Aca-
demic Achievement of Fourth-Grade Students.” Psycholo-
gy in the Schools 27, no. 4 (1990): 333-38.
Karweit, N., and Wasik, B. A Review of the Effects of Extra-Year
Kindergarten Programs and Transitional First Grades. Balti-

43
 more: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Dis-
advantaged Students, Johns Hopkins University, Novem-
ber 1992.
Kline, E. “Significant Changes in the Curve of Elimination
Since 1900.” Journal of Educational Research 26 (1933): 608-16.
Klonsky, S., and Klonsky, M. “Countering Anonymity Through
Small Schools.” Educational Leadership 57 (September 1999):
38-41.
Lenarduzzi, G. “The Effects of Nonpromotion in Junior High
School on Academic Achievement and Scholastic Effort.”
Reading Improvement 27, no. 3 (1990): 212-17.
Lenarduzzi, G., and McLaughlin, T. F. “The Longitudinal Ef-
fect of Non-Promotion in Junior High School on Academic
Achievement and Attendance.” Education 113 no. 1 (Fall
1992).
Little, T.S., and Dacus, N.B. “Looping: Moving Up with the
Class.” Educational Leadership 57 (September 1999): 42-45.
McLeskey, J.; Lancaster, M.; and Grizzle, K. “Learning Disa-
bilities and Grade Retention: A Review of Issues with Rec-
ommendations for Practice.” Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice 10 (Spring 1995): 120-28.
McPartland, J., et al. “Finding Safety in Small Numbers.” Edu-
cational Leadership 55 (October 1997): 14-17.
Mantizicopoulos, P., and Morrison, D. “Kindergarten Reten-
tion: Academic and Behavioral Outcomes Through the
End of Second Grade.” American Educational Research Jour-
nal 29 (Spring 1992): 182-98.
Maxwell, W.H. Sixth Annual Report of the Superintendent of
Schools. New York: New York City Board of Education, 1904.
Meier, D.W. “The Big Benefits of Smallness.” Educational
Leadership 54 (September 1996): 12-15.
Meisels, S.J., and Liaw, F. “Failure in Grade: Do Retained
Students Catch Up?” Journal of Educational Research 87
(November 1993): 69-77.

44
Natale, J. “Promotion or Retention? Ideas Are Changing —
Again.” Executive Educator 13 (January 1991): 15-18.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation
at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983.
Navarro, M.S., and Natalicio, D.S. “Closing the Achievement
Gap in El Paso: A Collaboration for K-16 Renewal.” Phi
Delta Kappan 80 (April 1999): 597-601.
Newmann, F.M. “Student Engagement and High School
Reform.” Educational Leadership 46 (February 1989): 34-36.
Nifenecker, E.A., and Campbell, H.G. “Statistical Reference
Data Relating to Problems of Ageness, Educational Retard-
ation, 1900-1934.” In Review of Departmental Experience in
Dealing with Problems of School Maladjustment. New York:
New York City Board of Education, 1937.
Norton, M.S. “Practical Alternatives to Student Retention.”
Contemporary Education 61 (Summer 1990): 204-208.
Otto, H.J. “Grading and Promotion Policies.” NEA Journal 40
(1951): 128-29.
Otto, H.J., and Melby, E.O. “An Attempt to Evaluate the
Threat of Failure as a Factor in Achievement.” Elementary
School Journal 35 (1935): 588-96.
Owings, W.A., and Kaplan, L.S. “Alternatives to Retention
and Social Promotion: Personalizing the Learning
Environment for At-Risk Students.” Principal Leadership 1
(February 2001): 42-47
Owings, W.A., and Magliaro, S. “Grade Retention: A History of
Failure.” Educational Leadership 56 (September 1998): 86-88.
Payne, R. Learning Structures Inside the Head. Baytown, Texas:
RFT, 1997.
Phillips, M. “What Makes Schools Effective? A Comparison
of the Relationships of Communitarian Climate and
Academic Climate to Mathematics Achievement and
Attendance During Middle School.” American Educational
Research Journal 34 (Winter 1997): 633-62.

45
Pinnell, G.S.; Deford, D.E.; and Lyons, C.A. Reading Recovery:
Early Interventions for At-Risk First-Graders. Arlington, Va.:
Educational Research Service, 1988.
Pool, C.R. “A Safe and Caring Place.” Educational Leadership
55 (December 1997/January 1998): 73–77.
Public Agenda. “Reality Check 2000.” Education Week, 16
February 2000, pp. S1-S8.
Rasmussen, K. “Looping: Discovering the Benefits of Multi-
year Teaching.” Education Update 40 (March 1998): 1, 3-4.
Raywid, M.A. “Alternative Schools: The State of the Art.”
Educational Leadership 52 (September 1995): 26-31.
Redding, S. “Academic Achievement, Poverty, and the
Expectations of Parents and Teachers.” School Community
Journal 7 (Fall/Winter 1997): 87-103.
Reynolds, A.J. “Grade Retention and School Adjustment: An
Explanatory Analysis.” Education Evaluation and Policy
Analysis 14 (Summer 1992): 101-21.
Reynolds, A.; Temple, J.; and McCoy, A. “Grade Retention
Doesn’t Work.” Education Week, 17 September 1997, p. 36.
Roberson, K. “Very Important Preschoolers.” Educational
Leadership 55 (December 1997/January 1998): 70–72.
Roderick, M. “Grade Retention and School Dropout: Invest-
igating the Association.” American Educational Research
Journal 31, no. 4 (1994): 729-59.
Roderick, M. Grade Retention and School Dropout: Policy Debate
and Research Questions. Research Bulletin of the Phi Delta
Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research,
No. 15. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa International,
December 1995.
Rumberger, R.W. “High School Dropouts: A Review of Issues
and Evidence.” Review of Educational Research 57 (Summer
1987): 101-21.
Schlechty, P.C. Schools for the 21st Century: Leadership Impera-
tives for Educational Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.

46
Schweinhart, L.J., and Weikart, D.P. “Why Curriculum
Matters in Early Childhood Education.” Educational Lead-
ership 55 (March 1998): 57-60.
Shelor, L., and Hohmann, M. Newport News Public Schools
Academy for Leaders of Change: Focus on Improving the Quality
of the Work Designed for Students. Louisville, Ky.: Center for
Leadership and School Reform, 10 November 1995.
Shepard, L., and Smith, M. “What Doesn’t Work: Explaining
Policies of Retention in the Early Grades.” Phi Delta Kappan
69 (October 1987): 129-34.
Shepard, L., and Smith, M. “Synthesis of Research on Grade
Retention.” Educational Leadership 47 (May 1990): 84-88.
Silver, A.A., and Hagin, R.A. Disorders of Learning in Childhood.
New York: Wiley, 1990.
Slavin, R.E. “Neverstreaming: Preventing Learning Disabili-
ties.” Educational Leadership 53 (February 1996): 4-7.
Slavin, R.E.; Karweit, N.L.; and Wasik, B.A. “Preventing Early
School Failure: What Works?” Educational Leadership 50
(December 1992/January 1993): 10-18.
Slavin, R.E., and Madden, N.A. “What Works for Students at
Risk: AResearch Synthesis.” Educational Leadership 46 (Feb-
ruary 1989): 4-13.
Snyder, J. “The Effects of Retention in Elementary School on
Subsequent Academic Performance.” Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association, Knoxville, November 1992.
Thomas, A.M., et al. “Early Retention: Are There Long-Term
Beneficial Effects?” Psychology in the Schools 29 (October
1992): 342-47.
Thorndike, E.L. “Elimination of Pupils from School.” U.S.
Bureau of Education, Education Bulletin. Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Office, 1908.
U.S. Department of Education. Taking Responsibility for Ending
Social Promotion: A Guide for Educators and State and Local
Leaders. Washington, D.C., 1999.

47
Viadero, D. “Who’s In, Who’s Out.” Education Week, 20 Jan-
uary 1999, pp. 1, 12-13.
Viadero, D. “Ending Social Promotion.” Education Week, 15
March 2000, pp. 40-42. a
Viadero, D. “Students in Dire Need of Good Teachers Often
Get the Least Qualified or Less Experienced.” Education
Week, 22 March 2000, pp. 18-19. b
Virginia Department of Education. Framework for Virginia
High Schools that Work: Technical Assistance Visits. Rich-
mond, Va., 1999.
Walmsley, S.A., and Allington, R.L. “Redefining and Reform-
ing Instructional Support Programs for At-Risk Students.”
In No Quick Fix: Rethinking Literacy Programs in America’s
Elementary Schools, edited by R.L. Allington and S.A.
Walmsley. New York: Teachers College Press, 1995.
Wolfe, P. “Revisiting Effective Teaching.” Educational Leader-
ship 56 (November 1998): 61-64.

48
 Recent Books Published by the
Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation

Readings on Leadership in Education

From the Archives of Phi Delta Kappa International
Trade paperback. $22 (PDK members, $16.50)

Profiles of Leadership in Education

Mark F. Goldberg
Trade paperback. $22 (PDK members, $16.50)

Quest for Truth:

Scientific Progress and Religious Beliefs
Mano Singham
Trade paperback. $22 (PDK members, $16.50)

Education in the United Kingdom and Ireland

James E. Green
Trade paperback. $15 (PDK members, $12)

American Education in the 21st Century

Dan H. Wishnietsky
Trade paperback. $22 (PDK members, $16.50)

Use Order Form on Next Page

Or Phone 1-800-766-1156

A processing charge is added to all orders.

Prices are subject to change without notice.
Complete online catalog at [Link]
 Order Form
SHIP TO:

STREET

CITY/STATE OR PROVINCE/ZIP OR POSTAL CODE

DAYTIME PHONE NUMBER PDK MEMBER ROLL NUMBER

QUANTITY TITLE PRICE

ORDERS MUST INCLUDE SUBTOTAL

PROCESSING CHARGE
Total Merchandise Processing Charge Indiana residents add
$3 to $25 $3 5% Sales Tax
$25.01 to $100 $5
Over $100 5% of total
PROCESSING
CHARGE
Special shipping available upon request.
Prices subject to change without notice. TOTAL

■ Payment Enclosed (check payable to Phi Delta Kappa International)

Bill my ■ VISA ■ MasterCard ■ American Express ■ Discover

ACCT # DATE

/
EXP DATE SIGNATURE

Mail or fax your order to: Phi Delta Kappa International,

P.O. Box 789, Bloomington, IN 47402-0789. USA
Fax: (812) 339-0018. Phone: (812) 339-1156
For fastest service, phone 1-800-766-1156
and use your credit card.