1. “The retained student” Ethnic minorities: black/Hispanic Gender: male Low SES Late birthday Parents normally a dropout; little or no involvement Behavior problems and frequently change schools Noticeable reading problem IQ = little difference between “non-retained and low-achieving peers”

2. Results of Retention 1.At times you see some achievement for the first 1-2 years after retention, but gains decline after that period—normally lower than “promoted low achieving peers”. 2.FIVE times more likely to dropout than non-retained student - Most powerful indicator of dropout prediction 3.Less likely to hold a job equal to general population; not the case for promoted “low achieving peers”. 4.Less likely to receive a GED or be enrolled in post-secondary education 5. Less money/hour than promoted “low achieving peers”.

3. Summary “Retention as an academic intervention is a failure” Retained students may “appear” to do better in the short term, but are at a greater risk of failure than “equally achieving, non-retained” peers. “Results indicate that grade retention had a negative impact on all areas of achievement (reading, math, and language)….” “Those who retain students at grade level do so despite cumulative evidence showing that the potential for negative effects consistently outweigh positive outcomes.” “Won the battle, but lost the war”. Neither grade retention nor social promotion are working!

4. Results of Literary Search and Data Analysis - Principal wanted to try program for retained students - We had to examine what we wanted to accomplish Assignment completion Responsibility for grades Better academic performance Minimal discipline problems - We had to examine what programs are in place Saturday school Computer labs with study island Flexible scheduling

5. Moving up program Retained Student Next Grade - Drop current electives - Take higher grade Math and Communications - Maintain “C” or higher in all classes - Study Island on Thursday after school - Saturday school - No discipline problems (Started with 20 after 7 th week of school, now have 14=70 %)

6. Survey Results 12 students 9 male, 3 female 2 sixth grade, 6 seventh grade, 4 eighth Analysis of questionnaire was focused on improving the current program

7. Comparison of question # 2 and # 11

8. Interesting responses on questions #4, 5, & 7

9. All agree responses for question # 8, 12, &1

10. Interviews 3 students: (1) 6 th, (1) 7 th, (1) 8 th grade Picked because of potential of success and teacher discussions - all above average in potential - all white males - all retained because of poor academic performance

11. Quick summary of interviewed students 6 th grader: OLSAT= normal range for both age and grade based scores -Grade 5 scored level 4 in reading (93%) and level 4 in math (57%) - Grade 6 retained because of failure of both reading and math, but scored level 4 in both (%N/A, 93%) 7 th grader: COGAT= 99 th percentile for both age and grade based scores -Grade 6 scored level 4 in reading (84%) and level 4 in math (87%) - Grade 7 retained because of failure of math, but scored level 4 in both reading and math (%N/A, 82%) 8 th grader: COGAT= 92 nd percentile for both age and grade based scores -Grade 7 scored level 4 in reading (84%) and level 4 in math (95%) - Grade 8 retained because of failure of math & comm, but scored level 4 in both reading and math (%N/A, 96%)

12. Analysis/Recommendations - SDMS is similar in retention statistics of other schools - At risk of failure students must be kept informed of grades and the consequences -- MS students are “short-sighted” and need to be kept up to date on grades - - meetings need to be very formal and have administrators/ teachers/ parents involved - Teachers are “expected” to get the work accomplished that they assign - Each student requires a “little modification” to get the desired performance