Retention: Current Research and Best Practices - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Retention: Current Research and Best Practices

By Megan Andrew,

Maryam

Scaffidi

, and

Kimberly

TzikasSlide2

Welcome Parents!

KWL chart

In the first column, record what you KNOW about retention.

In the second column, record what you WANT to know about retention.Slide3

Retention: Current Research & Best Practices

Workshop Outline

Perceptions

Current Research

Policy

Outcomes

Break

When is retention appropriate?

Alternatives Slide4

Audiences’ Personal Perceptions:

DiscussionSlide5

Common Perceptions in Research:

Parents & Students

Parents

StudentsSlide6

Parent Perceptions on

Grade Retention

Akmal

and Larsen (2004)

Some parents agreed with the decision to retain, or asked for their child to be retained.

P

arents

requested their child be retained, it was a way of showing punishment for “failing to show initiative or

cooperation.”

Jimerson

et al. (2004)

I

nformation

should be given to parents in order to provide them with a better understanding regarding the possible effects of retention on their

child.

Schools should provide effective

interventions and resources that parents can access to further their understanding of grade

retention.Slide7

Student Perceptions on

Grade Retention

Yamamoto

& Byrnes,

1987

By the time a student was in the 6th grade, only the loss of a parent and going blind would create a more stressful event than grade

retention.Slide8

Student Perceptions on

Grade

Retention

Penna

&

Tallerico, 2005Not much changed the second or third time around; rather they received the same instruction, textbooks, and assignments that they failed the previous year.

Redundant routine in the classroom was ultimately boring and frustrating.

S

tudents

reported receiving less help, and at times, being the subject of public humiliation by the

teacher.

R

idiculed

by their peers through both verbal remarks and demeaning

behaviors.

M

ocked

, picked on, bullied, and berated because of their age and retained

status.Slide9

Retention: Current Research & Best Practices

Workshop Outline

Perceptions

Current Research

Policy

Outcomes

Break

When is retention appropriate?

Alternatives Slide10

Current Research:

Statistics on Grade Retention

Rates of

g

rade retention

Demographics of those at risk for retentionEffects of age at time of retentionSlide11

Rates of Grade Retention

A

pproximately

three million children each year fail a

grade (Poland, 2009).

Rates are as high as 15%, demonstrating that within school populations of about 48 million students, more than 5.5 million students have been retained (Griffith, Lloyd, Lane, &

Tankersley

, 2010).

The

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) (2003) also approximates that 15% of all American students are retained each year, with 30-50% being held back at least once before the ninth grade. Slide12

Increase In Retention Rates

The percentage of students retained has shown a steady increase over the last 25 years to about 40% (

Rafoth

&

Knickelbein

, 2008).No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, led to an increase in retention rates, making

all students meet minimum academic

standards. Slide13

Who is at Risk?

Characteristics such as age

, gender, socioeconomic background, and race/ethnicity are risk factors for early grade

retention.

R

elatively younger students, especially grades kindergarten through third grade, and boys, are more likely to be held back (Cannon, Lipscomb, Public Policy Institute of California, 2011).

M

ore

African Americans than

Caucasians, more

boys than

girls, and

more students from

low SES households (Griffith, Lloyd, Lane,

Tankersley

, 2010).Slide14

Who is at Risk?

Students with (Griffith et al., (2010):

low

academic

performance;

failure to meet grade level standards;social immaturity;behavior problems;

English as a second language;

lack

of parental

involvement;

lack

of attendance and missed

instruction. Slide15

Grade Retention: Effects of Age

R

esearch

regarding when retention is most effective is

inconclusive.

Early grade retention (kindergarten through second grade)

did not yield advantages in reading from first to eighth grade, relative to students retained later (third through fifth grades

) (

Silberglitt

, Appleton,

Burnes

,

Jimerson

, 2006).

Retention

may decrease in effectiveness as grade level

increases (

Pomplun

, 1998). Slide16

Academic Redshirting

Definition:

I

ntentional delay of

school

entry into kindergarten in order to give the child extra time to mature and gain skills. Delay is generally an additional year.Slide17

Effects of Academic Redshirting

Delayed

entrants into kindergarten had lower achievement test scores later on, in addition to higher rates of high risk behaviors in

adolescence (

Rafoth

& Knickelbein, 2008).

Late

entry into kindergarten also denies children an opportunity for cognitive growth through social interaction with their age-

mates (National Association of Early Childhood Specialists, 2000).

A study conducted by Loeb (2007), found young kindergarten students made similar progress during their kindergarten year, when compared to their older peers.Slide18

Effects of Academic Redshirting

Quirk

, Furlong,

Lilles

, Felix, and Chin (2011

)The practice of redshirting was not associated with school readiness or accelerated achievement.

T

he

strongest predictor of school readiness is high quality preschool.

T

he

youngest

children

within the

sample

with

preschool,

were rated more ready for kindergarten than the

oldest

students

without

preschool.Slide19

Retention: Current Research & Best Practices

Workshop Outline

Perceptions

Current Research

Policy

Outcomes

Break

When is retention appropriate?

Alternatives Slide20

Current Policy:

California Education Code (EC)

Current state law in California requires every school district to have a written Pupil Promotion and Retention (PPR) policy approved by the district’s governing

board.Slide21

Current Policy: California Education

Code (EC)

PPR (2010) policies

must include criteria for promotion and retention at the following specific grade levels:

between 2

nd and 3rd grade;

between 3

rd

and 4

th

grade;

between 4

th

and 5

th

grade;

between the end of the elementary grades and the beginning of middle school;

between the end of the middle school grades and the beginning of high

school.Slide22

Current Policy: California Education

Code (EC)

Identification of students who should be retained or who are at the risk of being retained should be based primarily on:

proficiency in reading between the 2

nd

and 3rd grades and between the 3

rd

and 4

th

grades;

proficiency in reading, English-language arts, and mathematics for the remaining grade

levels.

EC

does not prohibit school districts from retaining a child in more than one

grade.Slide23

Current Policy: California Education

Code (EC)

What data should be used in the decision?

S

tudents

’ gradesOther indicators of academic achievement

Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program results

may

be included as one indicator of academic achievement; however, STAR testing results

may not

be the exclusive criterion for promotion or

retention.Slide24

Current Policy: California Education

Code (EC)

Who makes the initial recommendation?

If a pupil is identified as performing below the minimum standard for promotion, the pupil shall be retained unless their general education classroom teacher determines that retention is

inappropriate.

If the teacher deems it is

inappropriate, the

teacher should specify recommendations for intervention other than

retention.

School districts are also required to provide “programs of direct, systematic, and intensive supplemental instruction to pupils enrolled in grades two through nine who have been recommended for retention or who have been

retained.” Slide25

Current Policy: California Education

Code (EC)

How are parents involved?

D

istrict’s

policy shall provide for parental notification when a pupil is identified as being at risk of retention.N

otice

shall be provided as early in the school year as

practical.

S

chool

can retain or promote a student without parent or guardian

approval.

P

olicy

shall provide a process whereby the decision of the teacher to retain or promote a pupil may be

appealed.Slide26

Retention: Current Research & Best Practices

Workshop Outline

Perceptions

Current Research

Policy

Outcomes

Break

When is retention appropriate?

Alternatives Slide27

Current Research:

Outcomes of Grade Retention

Positives

Negatives

Academic

Social-EmotionalEconomicSlide28

Grade Retention:

Positive Outcomes

Cannon et al., (2011)

Students

who were retained in the

1st or 2nd grade,

can significantly improve their grade-level skills during the repeated

year.

Although

all groups achieved educationally meaningful gains, students who repeated a grade did not catch up to their original peers’ level of performance. Slide29

Grade Retention: Positive Outcomes

Witmer

, Hoffman, and

Nottis

(2004)

Any small positive effects that have been seen with the retained students usually have not been sustained beyond a few years. Slide30

Grade Retention: Positive Outcomes

Wu, Hughes, and West,

2010

Students benefited from retention in both short- and long-term, as reported by teacher-rated behavioral

observations.

Noted significant academic competence and social improvement.Teacher’s perceive a decrease in hyperactivity and an increase in behavioral engagement.

Possible Limitation: Despite benefits through 4

th

grade, retention may create vulnerabilities which may not appear until the middle grades.Slide31

Grade Retention: Positive Outcomes

Lorence (2006)

Positive effects of grade retention were specific to the instructional practices students received during their repeated grade.

If a student is covering the same material from the previous year, retained students are likely to experience little progress, if any.

With

supplemental educational support for students who have been retained, retained students’ academic performance increased.

Overall, any gains

made by low-performing students can be attributed to the number of hours spent in, as well as the intensity of, the intervention, not retention per

se (Abbott, Wills, Greenwood, &

Kamps

, 2010). Slide32

Grade Retention:

Negative Outcomes

Academic

Jimerson

,

Woehr, and Kaufman (2004)F

ound

that using retention as an intervention for academic failure does not improve academic

performance.

Although initial academic improvement may occur during the year the student is retained, achievement gains decline within 2-3 years of

retention. Slide33

Grade Retention: Negative Outcomes

Academic

Abbott et al., (2010)

Retained

students either show declines in achievement over several years after retention, or have academic outcomes that are no better after repeating a grade than those of low-achieving promoted students

.It is unwise to return students to the same insufficient academic environment that failed them in the first

place.

Rafoth

&

Knickelbein

(2008)

If

a student is not given additional instruction to help him/her learn material missed the previous year, there is little reason to expect simply repeating the curriculum will enhance student

learning.

R

etention

is the single most powerful predictor of dropping out of

school (

Penna

&

Tallerico

, 2005).Slide34

Grade Retention: Negative Outcomes

Social Emotional

The National

Association of School Psychologists (NASP)

supports conclusions

regarding negative social and emotional consequences experienced by retained students. Significant

increases in behavior

problems;

I

ncreased

risk of health-compromising

behaviors:

Emotional distress

Cigarette use

A

lcohol use

D

rug abuse

S

uicidal intentions

V

iolent behaviorsSlide35

Grade Retention: Negative Outcomes

Social Emotional

In

a longitudinal study of grade retention conducted by

Jimerson

& Ferguson (2007), results suggested that retained students displayed more aggression than the promoted group of students.Alexander

,

Entwisle

, & Dauber (1994) and Smalls (1997) reported students associate being retained with “flunking”; this association is hard on their self-esteem and resulted in teasing from their

peers.Slide36

Grade Retention: Negative Outcomes

Social Emotional

Holmes

(1989

)

A highly published meta-analysis, which concluded that on average, retained students displayed:Poorer

social

adjustment;

M

ore

negative attitudes toward

school;

L

ess

frequent

attendance;

M

ore

problem behaviors in comparison to control

groups.Slide37

Grade Retention: Negative Outcomes

Economic

School districts around the country spend an estimated

$10

billion

a year to provide an extra year of schooling for all retainees (Center for Policy Research in Education, 1990).

Cost is based on the extra money spent by the tax-payers to educate a student for an additional year, as well as the delayed entry into the workforce (

Eide

&

Goldhaber

, 2005

).Slide38

Grade Retention: Negative Outcomes

Economic

High

correlation between grade retention and high school

dropout

rates. Students who don’

t graduate are

ill-equipped for the modern workforce and ultimately

pay

less

taxes, adding

cost to welfare programs, and

are disproportionately

represented in crime and incarceration statistics (

Rumberger

, 1987).

From the societal level, the cost associated with grade retention and high school

dropout

rates, is estimated to exceed $240 billion

annually

(

Jimerson

& Ferguson, 2007).Slide39

Break

15 minutes

QuestionsSlide40

Retention: Current Research & Best Practices

Workshop Outline

Perceptions

Current Research

Policy

Outcomes

Break

When is retention appropriate?

Alternatives Slide41

When is Retention Appropriate?

M

ost

of the studies cited by those against retention are insufficiently sound to support the contention that making students repeat a grade is always

wrong (Lorence, 2006).

There are no specific indicators that predict which children could benefit from retention (Jimerson

et al., 2004).Slide42

When is Retention Appropriate?

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP)

(2003) also agrees that no study has been able to predict accurately which children will benefit from being

retained.

According

to the NASP position statement, under some circumstances, retention is less likely to yield negative effects for students who have:relatively

positive self-concepts

;

good

peer relationships;

social

, emotional, and behavioral strengths

;

fewer

achievement

problems.Slide43

When is Retention Appropriate?

NASP Position Statement (2003)

I

t

may be appropriate to retain a student who has difficulty in school due to a lack of opportunity for instruction, rather than lack of ability; however, retention is only appropriate if this lack of opportunity is due to attendance and mobility, and these problems have been

resolved.Students

should be no more than one year older than his or her

classmates.

Students

should receive specific remediation to address skills or behavioral

deficits,

and promote achievement and social skills during the repeated

grade.Slide44

Retention: Current Research & Best Practices

Workshop Outline

Perceptions

Current Research

Policy

Outcomes

Break

When is retention appropriate?

Alternatives Slide45

Alternatives to Grade Retention

Parent Centered

Preschool

School-wide Social & Academic

P

rogramsSummer and After-school ProgramsParent InvolvementSchool Centered

Looping and Multi-age Classrooms

School-based Mental Health Programs

Early Reading Programs

Effective Instructional Strategies

Behavior and Cognitive-behavior Modification StrategiesSlide46

Alternatives: Preschool

Poland (2009) suggests that implementation of universal preschool programs benefits children and reduces retention rates.

Jimerson

,

Pletcher

, Graydon, Schnurr

, Nickerson, and

Kundert

(2006)

Basic

literacy skills, pro-social behaviors, and

socioemotional

development are emphasized in preschool programs.

Early

emphasis may assist at-risk students before they experience academic challenges by providing a foundation of skills.

By

enhancing the necessary skills for academic success through

preschool

programs, retention may be

prevented. Slide47

Alternatives: Preschool

Kgobli

and

Sorlie

(2008)

Key Components of Preschool ProgramsConsultation

Training for teachers and preschool staff

teaching

of common

rules;

g

ood directions;

e

ncouragement;

negative consequences;

p

roblem

solving

skills

S

ocial skills training

emotion regulation;

problem solving;

anger managementSlide48

Alternatives: Preschool

Early Prevention & Intervention Programs

Federally funded

programs that focus

on high-risk

families, who are identified by low income, low parental IQ, and low education: Head Start

Project

;

The

Carolina Abecedarian

Project

;

T

he

Milwaukee

Project

;

The

Perry Pre School

ProjectSlide49

Alternatives:School

-Wide Social & Academic Programs

Definition:

“Establishing specific guidelines and providing proactive prevention and support for all students and faculty in a given school. The goal is to nurture the emergence of a school culture that promotes positive or appropriate behavior, and operates through collaborative data-based decision making to build a positive school

climate” (George

, Harrower, and

Knoster

, 2003). Slide50

Alternatives: School-wide Social & Academic Programs

George, Harrower, &

Knoster

(2003) recommend six general steps that ensure success when implementing a school-wide support system

Establish a foundation for collaboration or operation

;

Build

faculty involvement;

Establish

a data-based decision-making system

;

Brainstorm

and select strategies within an action planning process

;

Implement

school-wide program through an action plan

;

Monitor

, evaluate, and modify the program.Slide51

Alternatives:

Summer School & After School Programs

Research has shown additional time and exposure may help struggling students master academic material (

Jimerson

et al., 2006)

Cannon et al. (2011) suggest the following interventions to increase exposure to academic material for at-risk students.

T

rained

instructional aides to work with students in small groups on specific skills;

L

earning

centers and resource specialists for individual or small groups in the classroom, or in “pull out” sessions

;

A

fter

school tutoring led by trained school staff or volunteers;

S

ummer

school or intersession classes. Slide52

Alternatives: Summer School & After School Programs

Smink

(2011)

School

leaders

should invest in summer learning, because when students aren’t engaged in learning during the summer, they fall behind in math and reading.

S

chools can partner

with summer school programs facilitated by libraries, parks, or youth employment agencies, in order to stretch public

funds.

P

roviding

students with summer school

instruction would save funds that would be spent on re-teaching students throughout the year.Slide53

Alternatives: Summer School & After School Programs

Sherman &

Catapano

(2011)

After school programs provide opportunities:

To increase student learning, due to an increase in time spent on academic activities.

For k-12 students to experience

additional academic support in formats that are different from what they experience during the school day.

F

or

middle, or high

school students

, to help tutor younger children as

well. Slide54

Alternatives:Parent Involvement

Lack of parental involvement has been identified as a risk factor for

retention.

Schools are encouraged to make policy changes that encourage and facilitate a strong home-school

connection.Slide55

Alternatives:Parent Involvement

Barriers to Parental Involvement

(Lawson, 2003)

Language

barriers, work schedules, and a sense

of disenfranchisement have generally resulted in lower levels of (at least visible) parent involvement by working-class parents; in particular, those from ethnic and racial

minorities.

The

perception of what parent involvement actually

is, can

also be a

barrier.

P

arents

described involvement as “keeping their children safe and getting them to school

punctually.”

T

eachers

expected parents to be visible at

school.

T

eachers

can view parents as unwilling to help and has resulted in parents feeling

unappreciated.Slide56

Alternatives:Parent Involvement

Joyce Epstein's Framework of Six Types of

Involvement (1995)

Parenting

:

Parents create an environment in the home that supports learning.

Communicating: This type of involvement is characterized by communication between parents and school personnel. This occurs when parents regularly attend school conferences and functions, including attending parent-teacher association meetings (Ballantine, 1999).Slide57

Alternatives:Parent Involvement

Joyce Epstein's Framework of Six Types of

Involvement (1995)

Volunteering: Parents act as volunteers in their child’s school. This includes parents tutoring children in the classroom (

Darch

, Miao, & Shippen

, 2004) or helping the teacher by reading and grading papers (Ballantine, 1999).

Learning at

Home

: Parents assist their children with homework and ensure that homework is completed. Additionally, parents help their children set goals that motivate the child to learn. This involves parents having high expectations for their child.Slide58

Alternatives:Parent Involvement

Joyce Epstein's Framework of Six Types of

Involvement (1995)

5. Decision

Making

: Parents are involved in school decisions. One way parents accomplish this is by serving as representatives on school committees.

6. Collaborating w

ith

C

ommunity

: Identify and integrate resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and

development.Slide59

Alternatives:Parent Involvement

Strategies to Increase Parent Involvement in Schools

(

Darch

, Miao, &

Shippen, 2004)Communicate regularly, rather than just when a problem has occurred. Initiate positive contact with parents at the beginning of each school year, and maintain that contact all year.

Have parents complete an interest survey.

Call the parents of children identified as having a learning or behavior problem within the first two weeks of school (before other problems surface

).

Have

3-4 conferences

yearly with parents of children with learning and behavior problems. Slide60

Alternatives:Parent Involvement

Strategies to Increase Parent Involvement in Schools

(

Pogoloff

, 2004)

Communicate with parents in multiple ways. Each interaction with parents should begin with a positive statement, which will lessen defensiveness.Let parents know that their input is valued.

Interact with students and their families in various

settings,

such as attending the school’s athletic or theatrical activities.

Confidentiality must be respected to ensure a positive relationship.Slide61

Alternatives:Parent Involvement

Strategies to Increase Parent Involvement in Schools (

Kyriakides

, 2005)

Give parents meaningful jobs in the classroom

.Educationally related activitiesSlide62

Alternatives:Looping & Multi-Age Classrooms

Looping: students

spend two or more years with the same

teacher.

Also called

teacher rotation, family-style learning, student-teacher progression, and multiyear

instruction.

Multi-Age: students from two consecutive grades are in the same classroom and taught by the same teacher.Slide63

Alternatives:

School-Based Mental Health Programs

Students with mental health challenges often fall behind their classmates (

Jimerson

et al., 2006) and can end up being recommended for

retention.Schools provide excellent settings for targeting children’s mental health, their academic performance, and the important connection between the two (Greenwood,

Kratochwill

, & Clements, 2008

).Slide64

Alternatives:

Early Reading Programs

Low reading achievement is commonly cited as a reason for retention.

Reading interventions provide student’s with additional support and instruction in order to gain the skills necessary to succeed in school.

Research demonstrates evidence-based reading programs to be an effective alternative to grade retention.Slide65

Alternatives: Early Reading Programs

Reading Intervention

Programs

I

ntervention services improve achievement and reduce the need to retain.

Specific Reading ProgramsCorrective Reading

Reading Mastery

Language!

Wilson Reading System

Read 180Slide66

Alternatives:

Effective Instructional Techniques & Assessment

Implementing effective, research-based teaching strategies and assessment in the classroom, is an important link to student success.

Recommended teaching techniques and assessment include:

Direct instruction

Cooperative learning

Mnemonic strategies

Systematic Assessment Slide67

Alternatives:Effective Instructional Techniques & Assessment

Direct

Instruction (DI):

Model for teaching that emphasizes well-developed and carefully planned lessons

.

Cooperative learning:

Structuring classes around small groups that work together to meet a common goal.

Mnemonic strategies:

A strategy for understanding and remembering what one learns through creative restructuring of learned

material (e.g., rhyming, acronyms, singing, etc.).

Systematic assessment:

To evaluate a student’s response to intervention and provide consequences for improvement. Slide68

Alternatives:

Behavior & Cognitive-Behavior Techniques

Maladaptive behavior commonly plays a role in the decision to retain.

Behavior interventions can serve as prevention and intervention for students at- risk for retention.

Use a combination of behavioral approaches to reduce disruptive behaviors and increase on-task time in the classroom.Slide69

Alternatives: Behavior & Cognitive-Behavior Techniques

Specific Strategies to Improve Behavior

Peer and adult modeling;

Peer and adult monitoring;

Feedback;

Reinforcement (e.g., token reinforcement systems);Group and Individual counseling.Slide70

Alternatives: Behavior & Cognitive-Behavior Techniques

E

ffective in teaching anger control and self-management.

Ideas can be generated through the use of a Student Study Team (SST).

Provides a collaborative team approach with educators and parents (

Jimerson et al., 2004).

Assists in identifying an approach that would be most appropriate for a student’s specific behavioral and cognitive needs. Slide71

Conclusion

The goal of this presentation was to help you, as parents, to become more versed in the research surrounding retention, and in turn, be better able to advocate for your child. Lastly, it was imperative that we provide you with alternative strategies, if and when, your child is at risk for retention.Slide72

Questions? Slide73

Abbott, M., Wills, H., Greenwood, C. R.,

Kamps

, D.,

Heitzman

-Powell, L. & Selig, J. (2010). The combined effects of grade retention and targeted small-group intervention on students' literacy outcomes.

Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26(1), 4-25. Retrieved from EBSCO

host

.

Akmal

, T. T. & Larsen, D. E. (2004). Keeping history from repeating itself: Involving parents about retention decisions to support student achievement.

RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education

,

27

(2), 1-14. Retrieved from

EBSCO

host

.

Alexander, K.,

Entwisle

, D. & Dauber, S. (1994).

On the success of failure.

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (1997).

Passing on failure: District promotion policies and practices

. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED421560.pdf.

Ballantine

, J. H. (1999). Getting involved in our children's education.

Childhood Education

,

75

(3), 170-71.

Balow

, I. &

Schwager

, M. (1990).

Retention in grade: A failed procedure.

Report presented to the California Educational Research Cooperative, University of California, Riverside.

Bonvin

, P. P., Bless, G. G. &

Schuepbach

, M. M. (2008). Grade retention: Decision-making and effects on learning as well as social and emotional development.

School Effectiveness and School Improvement

,

19

(1), 1-19.

Bowman, L. J. (2005). Grade retention: Is it a help or hindrance to student academic success?.

Preventing School Failure

,

49

(3), 42-46. Retrieved from

EBSCO

host

.

Braden, M. D. & Miller, J. A. (2007). Increasing parental involvement in education.

Communiqué

, 36(1).

Bursuck

, B. & Blanks, B. (2010). Evidence-based early reading practices within a Response to Intervention System.

Psychology In The Schools

,

47

(5), 421-431.

California Department of Education[CDE]. (2011).

FAQs pupil promotion and retention

. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/pr/faqppr.asp

.

California Education Code. § 37252.2, 37252.5, 37252.8, 48070, 48070.5 (a) through (j). California Department of Education. Retrieved on September 24, 2012 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/

Cannon, J. S., Lipscomb, S. & Public Policy Institute of California. (2011).

Early grade retention and success: Evidence from Los Angeles

. Public Policy Institute of California, Retrieved from

EBSCOhost

.

Catalano, R. F.,

Mazza

, J. J.

&

Harachi

, T. W. (2003). Raising healthy children through enhancing social development in elementary school: Results after 1.5 years.

Journal of School Psychology, 41,

143-164.

Center for Policy Research in Education. (January, 1990).

Repeating grades in school: Current practice and research evidence

(Policy Brief). New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Christo

, C., Davis, J. & Brock, S.E. (2009).

Developmental psychopathology at school: Identifying, assessing, and treating dyslexia at school

. New York, NY: Springer Science Business Media.

Cistone

, P. &

Shneyderman

, A. (2004). Looping: An empirical evaluation.

International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, and Practice:

Reconceptualizing

Childhood Studies

,

5

(1), 47-61.

Darch

, C., Miao, Y. &

Shippen

, P. (2004). A model for involving parents of children with learning and behavior problems in the schools.

Preventing School Failure

,

48

(3), 24-34.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Alternatives to grade retention.

School Administrator

,

55

(7), 18-21.

Dwyer, K. (2004). Is every school psychologist a mental health provider?

YES!

Communique

´, 32,

11–12.

Eide

, E. R. &

Goldhaber

, D. D. (2005). Grade retention: What are the costs and benefits?

Journal of Education Finance

,

31

(2), 195-214.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share.

Phi Delta

Kappan

, 76

, 701-412.

Flanagan, D.P. & Alfonso, V.C. (2011).

Essentials of specific learning disability identification

. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

George, H., Harrower, J. K. &

Knoster

, T. (2003). School-wide prevention and early intervention: A process for establishing a system of school-wide behavior support.

Preventing School Failure, 47

(4), 170-176.

Goos

, M., Van

Damme

, J.,

Onghena

, P.,

Petry

, K. & Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. (2011).

First-grade retention: Effects on children's actual and perceived performance throughout elementary education

. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost

.Slide74

Gottfredson

, G. D., Jones, E. M. & Gore, T. W. (2002). Implementation and evaluation of a cognitive-behavioral intervention to prevent problem behavior in a disorganized school.

Prevention Science, 3,

43-56.

Greenberg, M. T.,

Domitrovich, C. & Bumbarger, B. (2001). The prevention of mental disorders in school-aged children: Current state of the field.

Prevention & Treatment, 4,

Article 1.

Greenwood, C. R.,

Kratochwill

, T. R. & Clements, M. (2008).

Schoolwide

prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools.

The Guilford Press: New York.

Griffith, C., Lloyd, J., Lane, K. &

Tankersley

, M. (2010). Grade retention of students during grades K-8 predicts reading achievement and progress during secondary schooling.

Reading & Writing Quarterly

,

26

(1), 51-66. doi:10.1080/10573560903396967

Hoagwood

, K. E., Olin, S.,

Kerker

, B. D.,

Kratochwill

, T. R., Crowe, M. &

Saka

, N. (2007). Empirically based school interventions targeted at academic and mental health functioning.

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

,

15

(2), 66-92.

Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies: In L. A.

Shepard

and M. L. Smith (Eds.).

Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention,

(pp. 16–33). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

Jimerson

, S. R. & Ferguson, P. (2007). A longitudinal study of grade retention: Academic and behavioral outcomes of retained students through adolescence.

School Psychology Quarterly

,

22

(3), 314-339. Retrieved from

EBSCO

host

.

Jimerson

, S. R. & Kaufman, A. M. (2003). Reading, writing ,and retention: A primer on grade retention research.

Reading Teacher

,

56

(7), 622. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost

.

Jimerson

, S. R.,

Pletcher

, S. W.,

Graydon

, K.,

Schnurr

, B. L., Nickerson, A. B. &

Kundert

, D. K. (2006). Beyond grade retention and social promotion: Promoting the social and academic competence of students

. Psychology in the Schools

,

43

(1), 85-97. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost

.

Jimerson

, S. R.,

Woehr

, S. M. & Kaufman, A. M. (2004). Grade retention and promotion: Information for parents.

Helping Children at Home and School II: Handouts for Families and Educators.

Jimerson

, S. R. (1999). On the failure of failure: Examining the association between early grade retention and education and employment outcomes during late adolescence.

Journal of School Psychology

,

37

, 243-272.

Jones, K. K., Daley, D. D., Hutchings, J. J.,

Bywater

, T. T. & Eames, C. C. (2008). Efficacy of the incredible years

programme

as an early intervention for children with conduct problems and ADHD: Long-term follow-up.

Child: Care, Health & Development, 34

(3), 380-390. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2008.00817.x

Kagan

, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher beliefs.

Educational Psychologist, 27,

65-90.

Kappler

, E. &

Roellke

, C. (2002). The promise of multiage grouping.

Kappa Delta Pi Record

,

38

(4), 165-70.

Klein, S. M. (2004).

Reaching new heights: A primary prevention program for gifted middle school students.

Unpublished Dissertation. Department of Psychology, Graduate College of Bowling Green State University.

Kyriakides

, L. (2005). Evaluating school policy on parents working with their children in class.

Journal of Educational Research

,

98

(5), 281.

Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement.

Urban Education

,

38

(1), 77-133.

Lloyd, J.,

Forness

, S. R. &

Kavale

, K. A. (1998). Some methods are more effective than others.

Intervention In School And Clinic

,

33

(4), 195-200.

Loeb, S., Bridges, M.,

Bassok

, D., Fuller, B. &

Rumberger

, R. W. (2007). How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers on children's social and cognitive development.

Economics of Education Review

,

26

(1), 52-66.

Lorence

, J. (2006). Retention and academic achievement research revisited from a United States perspective.

International Education Journal

,

7

(5), 731-777. Retrieved from

EBSCO

host

.

Lorence

, J., &

Dworkin

, A. (2006). Elementary grade retention in Texas and reading achievement among racial groups: 1994–2002.

Review of Policy Research

,

23

(5), 999-1033, retrieved from

EBSCO

host

.

Mason, E. M. & McMahon, H. (2009). Supporting academic improvement among eighth graders at risk for retention: An action research intervention.

RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education

,

33

(1), 1-5. Retrieved from

EBSCO

host

.

Murray, C. S., Woodruff, A. L. & Vaughn, S. (2010). First-grade student retention within a 3-tier reading framework.

Reading & Writing Quarterly

,

26

(1), 26-50. Retrieved from

EBSCO

host

.Slide75

National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (2000).

Still unacceptable trends in Kindergarten entry and placement:

A position statement. Retrieved from http://www.naecs-sde.org/publications.

National Association of School Psychologists [NASP]. (2003).

Student grade retention and social promotion

(Position Statement). Bethesda, MD: Author.National Institute for Direct Instruction. (2012).

About direct instruction

. Retrieved on February 19, 2012, from National Reading Panel.

National Reading Panel. (2000).

Report of the National Reading Panel. Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read.

National Institute for Literacy: The Partnership for Reading. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Nelson, J. R.,

Martella

, R. M. &

Marchand-Martella

, N. (2002). Maximizing student learning: The effects of a comprehensive school-based program for preventing problem behaviors.

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,

10, 136-148.

Ouellette, P. M., & Wilkerson, D. (2008). "They Won't Come": Increasing Parent Involvement in Parent Management Training Programs for At-Risk Youths in Schools.

School Social Work Journal

,

32

(2), 39-53.

Penna

, A. A. &

Tallerico

, M. (2005). Grade retention and school completion: Through students' eyes.

Journal of At-Risk Issues

,

11

(1), 13-17. Retrieved from

EBSCO

host

.

Pogoloff

, S. M. (2004). Facilitate positive relationships between parent and professionals.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 40

, 116–119.

Poland, S. (2009).

Grade retention: School districts are leaving too many children behind.

District Administration.

Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com/article/grade-retention.

Pomplun

, M. (1988). Retention: The earlier, the better?

Journal of Educational Research

,

81

(5), Retrieved from

EBSCO

host

.

Quirk, M., Furlong, M.,

Lilles

, E., Felix, E. & Chin, J. (2011). Preliminary Development of a Kindergarten school readiness assessment for Latino students.

Journal of Applied School Psychology

,

27

(1), 77-102.

Rafoth

, M. &

Knickelbein

, B. (2008). Best practices in preventing academic failure and promoting alternatives to retention.

Best Practice in School Psychology

,

70

(4), 1137-1149.

Reinke

, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C.,

Puri

, R. &

Goel

, N. (2011). Supporting children's mental health in schools: Teacher perceptions of needs, roles, and barriers.

School Psychology Quarterly

,

26

(1), 1-13.

Rumberger

, R. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and development.

Review of Educational Research, 57,

101–121.

Schnurr

, B. L.,

Kundert

, D. K. & Nickerson, A. B. (2009). Grade retention: Current decision-making practices and involvement of school psychologists working in public schools.

Psychology in the Schools

,

46

(5), 410-419. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost

.

Sherman, H. J. &

Catapano

, S. (2011). After-school elementary school mathematics club: Enhancing achievement and encouraging future teachers.

Educational Research Quarterly, 35

(1), 3-16.

Silberglitt

, B., Appleton, J. J., Burns, M. K. &

Jimerson

, S. R. (2006). Examining the effects of grade retention on student reading performance: A longitudinal study.

Journal of School Psychology

,

44

(4), 255-270. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost

.

Silberglitt

, B.,

Jimerson

, S. R., Burns, M. K. & Appleton, J. J. (2006). Does the timing of grade retention make a difference? Examining the effects of early versus later retention.

School Psychology Review

,

35

(1), 134-141. Retrieved from

EBSCO

host

.

Smalls, U. (1997).

Reacting in the best interest of our students

. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services, No. ED 415980)

Smink

, J. (2011). A new vision for summer school.

Educational Leadership

,

69

(4), 64-67.

Smith, L. (2011). Slowing the summer slide.

Educational Leadership

,

69

(4), 60-63.

Stecker

, P. M.,

Lembke

, E. S. &

Foegen

, A. (2008). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision making.

Preventing School Failure

,

52

(2), 48-58.

Sonnander

, K. (2000). Early identification of children with developmental disabilities.

Acta

Paediatrica

.

Supplement, 89

(s434), 17-23.

doi

: 10.1080/080352500750027358

Sorlie

, M. & Ogden, T. (2007). Immediate impacts of PALS: A school-wide multi-level

programme

targeting

behaviour

problems in elementary school.

Scandinavian Journal Of Educational Research, 51

(5), 471-492. doi:10.1080/00313830701576581Slide76

Tomchin

, E. M. &

Impara

, J. C. (1992). Unraveling teachers' beliefs about grade retention. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 199-223.

Villalba

, J. A., Akos

, P.,

Keeter

, K. & Ames, A. (2007). Promoting Latino student achievement and development through the ASCA national model [R]. Professional School Counseling, 10(5), 464-474.

What Works Clearinghouse, (2007). Corrective reading. What Works Clearinghouse intervention report. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from EBSCO.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2008). Reading mastery. What Works Clearinghouse intervention report. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from EBSCO.

What Works Clearinghouse, (2010). Reading mastery. What Works Clearinghouse intervention report. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from EBSCO.

Witmer

, S. M., Hoffman, L. M. &

Nottis

, K. E. (2004). Elementary teachers' beliefs and knowledge about grade retention: How do we know what they know?. Education, 125(2), 173. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost

.

Wu, W., West, S. G. & Hughes, J. N. (2010). Effect of grade retention in first grade on psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 135-152. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost

.

Yamamoto, K. & Byrnes, D. A. (1987). Primary children's ratings of the stressfulness of experiences. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 2(2), 117-21.

Zyromski

, B. & Joseph, A. (2008). Utilizing cognitive behavioral interventions to positively impact academic achievement in middle school students. Journal of School Counseling, 6(15).