A Guide for Educators and

State and Local Leaders

TAKING

RESPONSIBILITY 

FOR ENDING 

SOCIAL 

PROMOTION

U.S. Department of Education
Taking Responsibility for Ending Social Promotion

A Guide for Educators and State and Local Leaders

If we are going to go strong into the 21st century, we must continue to expand

opportunity for all of our people--and when it comes to our children’s education,

that means continuing to expect and demand the very best from our schools, our

teachers, and, above all, from our students. That is why I have fought for

excellence, competition, and accountability in our nation’s public schools, with

more parental involvement, greater choice, better teaching, and an end to social

promotion. We cannot afford to let our children down when they need us the

most.

—President Clinton, January 1998

May 1999
Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Marshall S. Smith

Deputy Secretary (A)

Terry K. Peterson

Counselor to the Secretary 

To request additional copies of this document, call 1-877-4ED-PUBS, or visit the Department of

Education’s website at <www.ed.gov>.
Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................... i

Presidential Directive ....................................................... 1

Introduction ............................................................... 4

What is social promotion? ..................................................... 5

How widespread is social promotion? ............................................ 6

What are the costs to students and society? ........................................ 8

Taking Responsibility ...................................................... 12

Set high standards of learning for all students ...................................... 15

Create reliable measures of achievement against standards ............................ 17

Concentrate on providing high-quality curriculum and instruction for all students ........... 21

Include families ............................................................ 23

Involve community stakeholders ............................................... 25

Starting Early ............................................................ 27

Provide opportunities for preschool ............................................. 27

Emphasize early childhood and family literacy ..................................... 30

Strengthening Learning Opportunities in the Classroom .......................... 32

Identify and intervene early with students at risk of falling behind ....................... 32

Ensure that there is a well-prepared teacher in every classroom ........................ 34

Use research-based practices .................................................. 38

Reduce class size ........................................................... 41

Accommodate students with special needs ........................................ 43

Extending Learning Time ................................................... 47

Establish after-school programs ................................................ 48

Provide summer school for students not meeting standards ........................... 49

Move toward year-round schooling ............................................. 50

Helping Students Who Still Do Not Meet Standards .............................. 52

Develop effective transition programs for students unprepared for promotion ............. 52

Prevent dropouts and help students realize postsecondary opportunities .................. 53

Holding Schools Accountable for Performance and Helping Them Improve ........... 56

Require public reporting of school performance .................................... 56

Intervene in low-performing schools ............................................ 57

Reward school improvement ................................................. 57

Conclusion ............................................................... 59

U.S. Department of Education’s Inventory of Resources for Ending Social Promotion . . 60

Notes 

Bibliography
1

Presidential Directive

 THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

February 23, 1998

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

SUBJECT: Helping Schools End Social Promotions

The linchpin of our efforts to strengthen public education has been to raise standards and

expectations for all students. As a result of state and local efforts, and with the support of Goals

2000 and other federal education programs, students in every state in the country are beginning to

benefit from higher academic standards and a more challenging curriculum.

If our efforts to promote higher standards are to lead to increased student achievement, the

standards must count. Students must be required to meet them, and schools must adequately

prepare each student to do so.

At present, standards don't count for much. Students are often passed from grade to grade

regardless of whether they have mastered required material and are academically prepared to do

the work at the next level. This practice is called social promotion. For many students, the

ultimate consequence is that they fall further and further behind, and leave school ill equipped for

college and lacking the skills needed for employment. This situation is unacceptable for students,

teachers, employers, and taxpayers.

That is why I have repeatedly challenged states and school districts to end social promotions--to

require students to meet rigorous academic standards at key transition points in their schooling,

and to end the practice of promoting students without regard to how much they have learned. As

every parent knows, students must earn promotion through effort and achievement, not simply by

accumulating time in school.

Especially in the early grades, students must acquire a solid foundation in reading in order to learn

other subjects in higher grades. Students should not be promoted past the fourth grade if they

cannot read independently and well, and they should not enter high school without a solid

foundation in math. They should get the help they need to meet the standards before moving on.

Neither promoting students when they are unprepared nor simply retaining them in the same grade

is the right response to low student achievement. Both approaches presume that high rates of

initial failure are inevitable and acceptable. Ending social promotions by simply holding

more students back is the wrong choice. Students who are required to repeat a year are more

likely than other students to eventually drop out, and few catch up academically with their peers. 

The right approach is to ensure that more students are prepared to meet challenging academic

standards in the first place.
2

Schools must implement those proven practices that will prepare students to meet rigorous

standards the first time. Schools must provide smaller classes, especially for the most

disadvantaged students. Schools must be staffed with well-prepared teachers. Schools 

should use specific grade-by-grade standards and a challenging curriculum aligned with those

standards. Schools must identify those students who need extra help early on, and provide it

immediately. There must be after-school and summer school programs for students who 

need them. The entire school staff must be accountable for results, and must work together as a

team to achieve good results for every child. If steps such as these are taken in every school as

part of an overall effort to require students to meet academic standards, we would see a dramatic

rise in student achievement and a decline in student retention rates. My Administration must help

states, school districts, and schools take these steps.

A growing number of states and school districts are working to end social promotion. A recent

study by the American Federation of Teachers shows that seven states now require school

districts and schools to use state standards and assessments to determine whether students can be

promoted at key grades. We must encourage more states to take this step.

Chicago also has ended social promotions, and has instituted a program that provides after-school

programs for students who need extra help and mandatory summer school for students who do

not meet promotion standards. In Cincinnati, student promotion is now based on specific

standards that define what students must know and be able to do. The standards are designed to

prepare students to pass the state's ninth-grade proficiency test. 

As more states and localities move to end social promotions, we must help them design and

implement approaches that will succeed. Therefore, I am directing you to take the following

actions:

1. Produce and widely disseminate guidelines for educators and policymakers on effective

approaches to ending social promotions. Drawing on the lessons from research and practice,

these guidelines should give educators and policymakers practical advice on how to design and

implement policies that require students to meet academic standards at key transition points

before being promoted. The guidelines should help schools:

< Implement strategies designed to prepare all students to meet the standards on time;

< End the use of remedial strategies that have been shown to be ineffective;

< Provide students who do not meet the standards with immediate and effective extra help, 

such as after-school tutoring programs and summer school, so that they can be promoted

on time;

< Implement effective interventions for students who must be retained; and

< Make appropriate use of tests and other indicators of academic performance in

determining whether students should be promoted.
3

2. Help states and school districts use federal education resources to implement effective

practices. The Department of Education should develop a plan to inform states, school districts,

and schools about Department of Education programs and resources, such as Title I, Goals

2000, the 21st Century Schools Program, the Comprehensive School Reform Program, and

others, that can be used to implement the recommendations in the guidelines just described.

Together, these initiatives can help ensure that our students receive a solid foundation in the basic

skills of reading and math, and master advanced subject matter as well. They can help improve

the quality of teaching and learning in our schools, and ensure that students who need extra help

get it without delay. They can help strengthen our public schools by raising standards, raising

expectations, and restoring accountability.

 WILLIAM J. CLINTON
4

Neither social promotion nor holding kids back

without help is a successful strategy for

improving learning.

—Sandra Feldman, American Federation of

Teachers

Introduction

Working to give students the opportunity to reach high standards of learning demands that

educators and state and local leaders take responsibility for ending the practice of social

promotion--where students are allowed to continue to pass through school with their peers

without satisfying academic requirements or meeting performance indicators at key grades. 

Research indicates, and common sense confirms, that passing students on to the next grade when

they are unprepared neither increases student achievement nor properly prepares students for

college and future employment.1 At the same time, research also shows that holding students

back to repeat a grade (retention) without changing instructional strategies is ineffective. Much 

evidence suggests that the achievement of retained students still lags behind that of their peers

after repeating a grade, making it an ineffective strategy for enabling students to catch up. 1

Retention in grade also greatly increases the likelihood that a student will drop out of school--and

being held back twice makes dropping out a virtual certainty. 

Students who are promoted without regard to their achievement or are retained often fall even

further behind their classmates, and those who do not drop out usually finish school without the

knowledge and skills expected of a high school graduate. Both being promoted without regard to

effort or achievement or retained without extra assistance sends a message to students that little is

expected from them, that they have little worth, and that they do not warrant the time and effort it

would take to help them be successful in school. 

Although it sounds appealing to suggest that all students must receive an equal and challenging

education, many school leaders struggle with the question of what to do about students who do

not make the grade and are unable to meet

the requirements set for them. Some

question whether all students are really

capable of meeting high standards. Others

are concerned that holding all students

accountable for achievement is unfair when

the system does not give all students equal

access to a high-quality educational

experience. There are ongoing challenges

about the use of assessments to make important educational decisions.

With pressure increasing to hold students accountable for performance and to end social

promotion, and research pointing to negative findings related to retention, educators often feel

they have few choices. Many are reluctant to end the practice of social promotion because they

believe that the only alternative for students who do not meet performance standards is to repeat a

grade. 
5

Why Do Children Have Difficulty in

School?

While all children have the capacity to acquire the

knowledge and skills required for functioning in

school, work, and society, educators must face the

following challenges as they develop policies to

help underachieving students learn:

< Immaturity or unreadiness for school,

< Lack of a rich curriculum or instructional

practices that support high achievement in

school,

< Limited English-language skills,

< Excessive absenteeism,

< Ill-conceived theories about children and

their learning that sustain low expectations

and achievement, and

< Lack of engagement in the education

process.

—adapted from American Federation of Teachers

This guide holds that the issue of ending social promotion has too often been posed as a debate

over the relative benefits and disadvantages of promotion versus retention. The results of both

policies are unacceptably high dropout rates, especially for poor and minority students, and

inadequate knowledge and skills for students. Neither practice closes the learning gap for lowachieving students, and neither practice is an appropriate response to the academic needs of

students experiencing difficulty mastering required coursework. 

If we are going to expect more from our students, then our leaders, administrators, teachers,

parents, and community members need to expect more of themselves. Taking responsibility for

ending social promotion requires tough decisions and strong actions by states, districts, and 

schools. It means requiring students to meet performance standards in key subject areas, at key

transition points, in order to advance to the next grade level. It involves setting clear expectations

for students and explicit policies for promotion, and adopting measures to hold all stakeholders

accountable for student performance. 

To truly embrace the idea that all children can learn to high standards requires that every student

has the chance to learn the content and the best possible opportunity to achieve to high standards. 

It requires a comprehensive approach to ending social promotion that begins early with

opportunities for preschool and early childhood learning; strengthens teaching by providing highquality curriculum, instruction, and teacher preparation; identifies students who need extra help

early and accommodates students with special needs; and provides additional learning time. It

also means intervening to help students

who, despite these efforts, still need help to

meet challenging standards. Systemwide,

taking responsibility for ending social

promotion means holding schools publicly

accountable for delivering the kind of

education students need to reach standards,

rewarding schools when they do deliver, and

helping low-performing schools improve. 

Throughout, parents need to remain actively

involved in their children’s education at

home and at school.

What is social promotion?

Social promotion is generally understood to

be the practice of allowing students who

have failed to meet performance standards

and academic requirements to pass on to the

next grade with their peers instead of

completing or satisfying the requirements. 

Promoting students in this way is called

social promotion because it is often carried
6

Is there another alternative? Can’t you

intervene before retention, and can’t you

extend time periods so that you spend

more time with these children? Does

retention have to be your only option?

—Houston teacher

out in the presumed interest of a student’s social and psychological well-being, without regard to

achievement.

Retention, sometimes viewed as the only alternative to social promotion, is a policy that holds

back students who have failing grades at the end of a school year. Retention is most often a

policy of repetition--students are given an additional year to repeat a grade to go over the same

academic content, often taught the same way, that they failed to master the previous year. 

How widespread is social promotion? 

While social promotion and retention are salient educational issues, it is difficult to estimate the

prevalence of the practices. Some states do not

collect retention information at all and many

others collect only limited data. Retention rates

vary widely and it is difficult to interpret and

compare the data.2 Social promotion remains a

hidden problem. Few are willing to admit the

extent to which social promotion takes place,

much less keep track of it.

 

Still, a variety of indicators suggest that social

promotion is a serious problem facing our public

education system. 

< A majority of the teachers surveyed in a recent poll indicated that they had promoted

unprepared students in the past year.3 

< Research indicates that from 10 to 15 percent of young adults who graduate from high

school and have not gone further--up to 340,000 high school graduates each year--cannot

balance a checkbook or write a letter to a credit card company to explain an error on a

bill.4 

< If one looks at national assessments of student performance, upwards of a third of

students score below the basic level of proficiency. For example, mathematics results

from the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for students in

grades 4, 8, and 12 show that between 32 to 40 percent of public school students in the

nation failed to meet the “basic” standard. At the same time, analysis of the 1996 Current

Population Statistics indicates that only about 3 percent of students are two or more years

over age for their grade (an indication that they have been retained at least once).5

< The California State University system, for example, reported that in 1998, 54 percent of

its incoming freshmen failed to pass an entry level math placement test. Forty-seven

percent failed an English placement test.6
7

Research also indicates that retention is a serious problem in our schools. The 3 percent figure

cited above is a very conservative estimate. A recent study tracing a cohort of children from 1987

to 1996 (and based on the percentage of students who are one, rather than two, years over age for

their grade) estimated that 21 percent of students were enrolled below grade level at ages 6 to 8. 

By the time the students were 12 to 14 years old, 31 percent were below grade level for their

age.7 Data from the Child Health Survey and National Household Education Survey suggest that

by first grade 7 to 10 percent of students have been retained.8 

Of particular concern is the fact that across all of these measures grade retention varies

substantially by family income and parent education. Using more conservative estimates (based

only on students who are two or more years over age for their grade), in low-income families and

families in which the parents have less than a high school education, almost 7 percent of students

are at least two years older than their classmates, whereas in higher-income families less than 2

percent of students are two or more years over age. Retention also is more than twice as likely

among boys as among girls, and more than twice as prevalent among African American students

as among white students. Across all age groups, 2.6 percent of white students, 3.8 percent of

Hispanic students, and 5.9 percent of African American students are two or more years over the

expected age for their grade. 9

The impact of social promotion is evident from survey research on confidence in the credentials of

today's high school graduates. According to Public Agenda, 63 percent of employers, 32 percent

of parents, and 26 percent of teachers do not believe a high school diploma is a guarantee that

students have mastered the basics.10 

PARENTS STUDENTS TEACHERS EMPLOYERS

Which statement is more accurate

for the students graduating from

your high school:

 1. A high school diploma is not a

 guarantee that the typical student

 has learned the basics; or

 2. A high school diploma means

 that the typical student has at

 least learned the basics?

Source: Public Agenda, 1998.

32%

62%

22%

77%

26%

73%

63%

35%

As mentioned above, survey research also indicates that teachers are socially promoting students.

Although most teachers agree that promoting students who are unprepared creates a burden for

teachers and classmates, lowers standards, and impedes the education of all students, in a recent

poll, more than half reported that they had promoted unprepared students in the past year. The
8

Let’s ensure that students are learning the

basics, and let’s guarantee that a high school

diploma means what it ought to mean...We

must stop promoting students who haven’t

learned and we must stop graduating students

who aren’t ready...What is right is to identify

the students who need help, figure out what

they need and focus on giving them the help

they need.

-Governor James Hunt, North Carolina 

reasons teachers gave for passing students along even when they are unprepared included the

following: 

< Teachers feel under pressure to promote students. Out of fear that high failure rates

reflect poorly on schools and administrators, teachers sometimes yield to pressure from

principals and parents to promote unprepared students. Sixty percent of teachers

surveyed report pressure from principals and other administrators to promote students,

and 52 percent report parental pressure to promote students. As one Houston teacher

explained in a recent focus group on ending social promotion, “Administrators just

basically come down and tell the teachers, ‘Look, we can't have a high failure rate because

it makes me look bad. And if I look bad, you look bad.’”11

< Teachers know that educational research indicates that retention can be ineffective, 

if not harmful, but many feel that there are insufficient educational alternatives to social

promotion or retention for students who do not master the grade-level material.12

Concern about social promotion is

becoming more evident in the policy

priorities of public officials as well. 

According to the American Federation of

Teachers, 10 states have established

statewide policies for ending social

promotion.13 In their 1999 State of the

State addresses, numerous governors

called for an end to social promotion in

their schools. States such as California,

Delaware, South Carolina, and Wisconsin

recently passed laws to curtail social

promotion by tying promotion policies to state content and student performance standards. 

What are the costs to students and society? 

Decades of research indicate that both retention and social promotion, if not accompanied by

effective programmatic intervention, fail to provide long-term benefits for low-performing

students. The practices of retention and social promotion were being questioned in the research

literature as early as the 1940s, and hundreds of independent studies and research reviews since

then have added to the body of negative findings. This research indicates that neither practice, as

typically implemented, improves failing students’ chances for educational success.

The costs of social promotion to students are high. To move students from grade to grade

without attention to their skills is an unacceptable practice. It frustrates students who cannot do

the work expected, and it sends a message to students that little is expected of them. As a result,

students fail to grasp the importance of working to achieve academic goals and learn they can get
9

Chicago’s Rationale for Ending Social Promotion

< Success in any phase of the curriculum depends on mastery of prerequisite skills taught in the

preceding grades.

< Students entering high school with inadequate skills are unable to make the adjustments

required for academic success; this situation has resulted in a large number of failures in ninth

and tenth grades and a high dropout rate.

< Social promotion depreciates the value of the eighth-grade and high school diplomas in the

Chicago Public School system.

< By rewarding students who have not achieved acceptable standards of performance, social

promotion diminishes the effects of individual student motivation.

< Social promotion can give parents and students a false sense of accomplishment, which can

have detrimental consequences in later life.

—Chicago Public Schools

by without working hard.14 Students who are socially promoted are likely to graduate, if they

graduate at all, unprepared for work and for the future. 

But research shows that retention also has serious negative effects on students. Students retained

and retaught the same material using the same instructional practices usually do not catch up to

their peers. The National Association of School Psychologists has reported that retained children

tend to have low self-esteem, get into trouble, and dislike school. Retention can be a particularly

traumatic experience for children who view it as punishment and a highly stressful event.15 As

with students who are socially promoted, often students who repeat a grade are treated as “lost

causes.” Teachers assume that the retained students have limited potential and thus have low

expectations of them. 

The costs of failing to help students meet academic expectations extend beyond individual

students to society as a whole. Social promotion has been pointed to as one of the main reasons

why many colleges and businesses must spend time and money giving high school graduates

remedial training in such basics as reading. A recent study by the Brookings Institution estimates

that the total cost of providing remedial instruction to incoming freshmen nationwide is about $1

billion. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, about one in three

incoming college freshmen in 1996 had to take a remedial class in math, reading, or writing. 

Policies to end social promotion must be accompanied by a recognition that it will take much

effort and many resources to help those students who do not meet standards; Boston’s efforts to
10

Strategies for Ending 

Social Promotion

Comprehensive approaches to ending social

promotion require leadership, resources, and

community support to:

< Set clear objectives for students to meet

performance standards at key grades.

< Identify student needs early in order to

apply appropriate instructional strategies.

< Emphasize early childhood literacy.

< Focus on providing high-quality

curriculum and instruction.

< Provide professional development that

deepens teachers’ content knowledge and

improves instructional strategies to engage

all children in learning.

< Set out explicit expectations for all

stakeholders, including families and

communities, in efforts to help end social

promotion.

< Provide summer school for students who

are not meeting high academic standards.

< Extend learning time through before- and

after-school programs, tutoring, homework

centers, and year-round schooling.

< Reduce class sizes in the primary grades.

< Keep students and teachers together for

more than one year and use other effective

student grouping practices.

< Develop transitional and dropout

prevention programs.

< Hold schools accountable for performance

by publicly reporting school performance,

rewarding school improvement, and

intervening in low-performing schools.

end social promotion are expected to cost $5 million annually.16 Chicago anticipates that it will

cost $63 million to provide summer school assistance to over 80,000 students in 1999. 

But failure to take responsibility for the education of all children in our society, including failure

to provide opportunity to underachieving students, holds potentially even greater costs to society. 

Low self-esteem, lack of education, and school failure are highly associated with poverty, crime,

and violence among youth and young adults.

The policy options available to educators

and state and local leaders are not simply

social promotion or retention. The

following sections of this guide offer better

options for educators and state and local

leaders, including a variety of promising

strategies to prevent academic failure and

intervene when students need extra

assistance to meet high standards. 

The first section describes how states,

districts, and schools can set a policy

context for academic success by taking

responsibility for setting explicit promotion

policies and raising standards. It also

highlights the importance of concentrating

on providing high-quality curriculum and

instruction to all students, as well as the

importance of including families and

community stakeholders among those who

must take responsibility for helping

students meet expectations. 

The next section emphasizes that schools

must start early to prevent academic failure

by offering preschool and early literacy

opportunities. The guide then turns to

strategies for strengthening learning

opportunities in the classroom by

identifying and intervening early for at-risk

students, ensuring that there is a wellprepared teacher in every classroom, using

research-based practices, reducing class

size, and accommodating students with

special needs. 
11

If you are just going to pass students on to

the next grade, you are dooming them to

failure.

—a Philadelphia teacher

The guide also examines strategies--such as summer school, after-school programs, and year

round schooling--for extending learning time to help students who, despite prevention and early

intervention efforts, still need alternatives that help them develop the skills they need to achieve.

Finally, the guide addresses the issue of

school accountability. Ending social

promotion demands leadership, and a sense

of collective responsibility that can only

develop when expectations and

consequences are clearly communicated

within schools and with parents and the

community. The guide concludes with an

inventory of federal resources available to help states, districts, and schools end social promotion.

 
12

Making Standards Matter (1995-98)

1995 1996 1997 1998

States with policies for ending 

social promotion 10

States with promotion policies based on

achievement toward state standards n/a 3 7 

7 

States with exit exams aligned to tenthgrade standards or higher 7 13 13 13

States with incentives for students to 

reach higher standards n/a 8 16 20

States with interventions for students who 

have difficulty meeting standards n/a 10 13 20

Source: American Federation of Teachers, 1998.

Taking Responsibility

Ending social promotion requires that all stakeholders--from state, district, school, and

community leaders to teachers, parents, and students themselves--take responsibility for student

performance and the quality of education children receive. This section discusses some important

steps in setting a policy context for ending social promotion, including: setting high standards and

expectations for learning for all students, creating reliable measures of student achievement

against standards, including all stakeholders in the process of improving student performance, and

concentrating on providing high-quality curriculum and instruction for all students. 

In a recent survey by the Department of Education, 86 percent of districts report that they have a

written policy on student promotion and retention. Another survey of the 85 largest school

districts in the nation, conducted by the American Federation of Teachers, revealed that more than

90 percent of the districts surveyed reported having formal, written school board policies on

retention and promotion. At the same time, the report notes that although no district policy

explicitly endorses social promotion, many districts maintain restrictions on retaining students. 

Forty percent of the districts surveyed have explicit limitations on the number of times a student

can be retained. More than 30 percent of districts have mandatory age limits for students in

certain grades.17 

But states and districts across the nation are beginning to set clearer policies about the promotion

and retention of students. These policies are increasingly explicit, not only about the standards by
13

Setting Expectations:

Highlights from Boston’s Policy to End

Social Promotion

< Beginning in summer 1999, summer school is

available for students who have not met

promotion requirements by the end of grades 2,

5, and 8.

< Students in grades 5 and 8 who have already

been retained one year and who do not meet

promotion requirements to grades 6 and 9 must

attend a special transition program to boost

skills.

< Students can have only three unexcused

absences per marking period or they will receive

no credit or fail, unless they pass the final exam

for the course.

< Starting with the class of 2002, all high school

students must take and pass advanced algebra.

-Boston Public Schools

which promotion decisions are made, but also about the help that students must receive to meet

the standards. In 1998, of the 10 states had explicit policies for ending social promotion, 7 based

their promotion policies on achievement of state standards. Twenty-four states had high school

exit exams based on state standards, and 13 aligned their exit exams to tenth-grade standards or

higher.18 Twenty states funded academic intervention programs for students who are struggling

to meet standards.19

Recently, Chicago, Tacoma (Washington), Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and New York City, and

states such as Florida, Texas, and Oregon, stepped up their efforts to end social promotion. For

example, Cincinnati has established standards at three grade levels (3, 6, 8) that students must

meet to be promoted. Students must demonstrate proficiency in reading, math, science, and

social studies in portfolios of their best work completed in grades K-3, 4-6, and 7-8. Students

who do not meet promotion standards participate in “Plus.” Plus classrooms at grades 3, 6, 8

serve smaller groups of students and focus on helping students meet the standards. Satisfactory

attainment of the eighth-grade standards

means that students should be ready to

pass the Ohio ninth-grade proficiency

test.

As part of its Children First Education

Plan, Chicago officials have mandated

that students in key transition grades (3,

6, 8, and 9) who fail to meet standards

on the district assessment must

participate in a seven-week Summer

Bridge program and pass the district

assessment before moving on to the next

grade.

New York City has adopted the New

Standards, developed by the National

Center for Education and the Economy,

for language arts, mathematics, science,

and applied learning. The district is

making efforts to ensure that all

assessments are aligned with the

standards and that assessment results

guide instruction and are used to hold

schools and students accountable for

performance. New York City’s new

promotion standards for grades 4, 7, and

12, proposed for 2000, will rest upon a combination of criteria including citywide assessments,

grades, portfolios of student work, and attendance. An early warning systems for parents and
14

State Promotion Policies

California: Assembly Bills 1626 and 1639, signed into law in September 1998, require

districts to retain in grade students who do not meet certain performance criteria, and to

provide funding for summer remediation programs for those students. Each school board

must establish promotion standards for students in grades 2, 3, and 4, and for promotion to

both middle school and high school. The promotion standards are based on students’

performance either on the state’s Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program or

the students’ grades and other indicators of academic achievement. For students in grades

2 and 3, districts must establish promotion standards only in reading; in the other grades,

districts must set standards in reading, language arts, and math. Districts must make

summer remediation programs available to retained students--and may compel them to

attend.

Colorado: The Colorado Basic Literacy Act of 1996 mandates that schools must develop

an individual literacy plan for each student who is not proficient or at grade level on the

state’s third-grade reading assessment and on other indicators of student achievement. 

Students may still be promoted to the fourth grade with their peers, but reading instruction

is adapted to their individual levels. Individual literacy plans must also include a home

reading program. Many of the individual literacy plans call for the students to attend

summer school and tutoring sessions to improve their reading skills. 

Ohio: Senate Bill 55, signed by the governor in 1997, prohibits all school districts from

promoting any fourth grader who fails to show proficiency on the state’s reading test

unless the student was exempted because of a disability or unless both the reading teacher

and principal agree that the student is academically prepared for grade 5. Districts must

annually assess students in grades 1-3 to identify those students below grade level. 

Students reading below grade level in grades 1 and 2 must be offered intervention; districts

must offer intense summer remediation for third grade students identified as reading below

grade level. Beginning in the fall of 2001, fourth graders will have three opportunities to

take the reading test. Beginning in summer 1999, districts must offer summer remediation

to students below proficient on three or more subject area proficiency tests. Ohio’s

proficiency tests cover the areas of writing, reading, mathematics, citizenship, and science.

early intervention strategies are critical components of the plan. Statewide, students in New York

will be required to earn a challenging “regent’s diploma” in order to graduate. Some research is

showing that high school exit exams such as the New York State Regents have a positive effect

on student achievement.20 

Efforts to hold students accountable for meeting standards may be a motivating force for student

as well. Results from a recent Public Agenda poll indicate that 68 percent of students in schools
15

Real World Academic Standards and Ending Social Promotion

Corpus Christi, Texas

Many school districts across the nation have developed their own high standards for student

achievement. In pursuit of its mission--that all students will achieve their full educational potential and

be challenged to excel academically--the Corpus Christi Independent School District has developed

“Real World Academic Standards,” which are more challenging than the state standards and are tied to

the district’s efforts to end social promotion. The district’s standards explain what students at every

level, from prekindergarten through high school graduation, are expected to know. The standards set

expectations for academic achievement, student conduct, promotion, and retention. The standards are

designed to help teachers, students, and parents understand what is expected of students academically

and to ensure that they are prepared to move forward. The district issues individual report cards that

show each student’s progress toward meeting each specific standard.

Students are given multiple opportunities to meet standards and extra assistance if they have trouble. 

Tutoring is required and, while not mandatory, summer school is strongly recommended. Each

school’s campus action plan must include strategies for addressing the needs of students who are not

meeting standards. One school has rearranged the school day to give teachers more time to work

intensively with failing students. Other schools have taken advantage of community resources by

having personnel from nearby military bases provide one-on-one tutoring to students who need

assistance.

Students in Corpus Christi have been making significant achievement gains since the district’s

academic standards were put in place. Between 1994 and 1998 the percent of students achieving at an

academically acceptable level on all subject areas on the Texas state assessment rose from 51 percent

to 71 percent. 

with high school exit exams said that the tests made them work harder in school. 21

Set high standards of learning for all students 

The process of making decisions about whether or not to promote students to the next grade still

varies widely across the country, with teacher assessments serving as the most frequent tool for

decision making. Unfortunately, some research suggests that teachers often make those decisions

in the context of different expectations for different students, and sometimes lower expectations

for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. For example, a 1994 U.S. Department of

Education study found that when student grades were compared with performance on external

reading and math exams, there were large disparities in achievement. The report found that an

acceptable level of performance in a high-poverty school would be considered failing in more

affluent schools.22
16

Setting Standards of Excellence

The Council of Basic Education’s recent guide for parents, teachers, and principals on implementing

standards for education features examples of clear and specific standards for what students should

know by grade and subject area. Below is an excerpt of expectations for 4th graders in writing.

Students will write clear and coherent sentences and paragraphs that develop a central idea. 

Their writing considers audience and purpose. They successfully use the stages of the writing

process (prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing successive versions). 

By the end of grade 4 students should be able to:

< Select a focus, organization, and point of view.

< Create a multiple-paragraph composition.

< Write fluidly and legibly. 

< Quote or paraphrase information sources.

< Locate information in reference texts.

< Use various reference materials (e.g., dictionary, thesaurus, card catalog, encyclopedia, online resources).

< Understand the structure and organization of (and use) almanacs, newspapers, and

periodicals.

< Demonstrate basic keyboarding skills and familiarity with the vocabulary of technology.

< Edit and revise drafts.

- Council of Basic Education, Standards for Excellence in Education

One of the first steps, then, in taking responsibility for ending social promotion requires states and

districts to develop clear and challenging standards for all students. There is widespread

agreement among the public (87 percent) that schools need to set higher standards than are now

required about what students should know and be able to do to be promoted from grade to grade

and to graduate. More than two-thirds of the public and 62 percent of teachers want to raise

standards of promotion from grade school to junior high. A majority of the public favors stricter

requirements for high school graduation.23
17

Standards help teachers concentrate on instruction, help parents and students understand what is

expected academically, and help ensure that students are prepared for the next grade and beyond. 

In order to be effective, these standards must be clear, specific, realistic, and integrated into the

daily work of teachers in the classroom. 

Recent history provides some lessons about the impact of standards on student performance and

graduation from school, particularly for at-risk students. In the 1970s states instituted minimum

competency tests to ensure that their graduates were leaving school with basic skills. Despite the

dire warnings that such testing would lead to higher dropout rates, graduation rates and test

scores for minority students actually improved during this period. Not only did students rise to

the challenge, but, even more important, school systems upgraded curriculum and instruction in

line with the standards to ensure that students were prepared to pass the tests.24 

As we prepare to enter the 21st century, we are asking more of our students and school systems,

yet the same principle applies. Standards can galvanize schools around what is important to teach

and what is important to learn. Changing curriculum and instruction to meet more demanding

standards of performance poses a monumental challenge, requiring concentrated and sustained

effort at all levels of the system.

To help raise the expectations for learning for all students, especially disadvantaged students, the

U.S. Department of Education has helped states develop challenging content and student

performance standards. Accountability in the largest elementary and secondary program, Title I,

is tied to student performance in meeting challenging state standards. Goals 2000 provides grants

to help states and districts implement systemic standards-based reform. Almost all states now

have content standards in place and are developing challenging student performance standards to

measure what students should know and be able to do in key grades throughout their education.

Create reliable measures of student performance against standards

In line with the requirement in Title I for states to adopt challenging state content and student

performance standards, states and districts are also required to develop assessments aligned with

content and student performance standards that become a basis for school-level accountability

measures. The program recognizes that schools must be able to accurately measure student

progress toward achieving the standards. States, districts, and schools need to use a variety of

assessment instruments to identify students’ difficulties early, choose effective intervention

strategies, make more consistent decisions about whether a student is ready to be promoted to the

next level of instruction, and ultimately hold schools and students more accountable for

performance. 

These assessments have been welcomed in many states as a means to hold schools more

accountable for performance, and in some states, as part of an effort to hold students more

accountable and put an end to social promotion. Currently, nearly 40 percent of districts report
18

that they use a districtwide standardized test as part of making promotion decisions at the

elementary school level, 35 percent use them at the middle-school level, and 23 percent at the

high school level. At least 32 states and 34 urban districts now have accountability systems that

provide rewards or sanctions for schools that are based, at least in part, on state or district

assessment results.25

Some states have seen dramatic increases in student achievement with the implementation of state

assessment and accountability systems. Texas and North Carolina, for example, were recently

recognized by the National Education Goals Panel for significant gains in student achievement and

success in improving education. 

< In Texas, schools are rated based on three indicators reflected in the state’s Academic

Excellence Indicator System (AEIS): student achievement on the reading, math, and

writing sections of the state assessment for grades 3, 8, and 10; annual dropout rates for

grades 7-12; and attendance rates for grades 1-12. The state has developed four rating

levels for schools: exemplary, recognized, acceptable, and low-performing. Since

instituting its state assessment and accountability system, Texas has seen a significant

decline in the number of low-performing schools in the state and an increase in the number

of exemplary schools. The Texas Learning Index shows that the proportion of students

passing the state assessment improved from 55 percent in 1994 to 74 percent in 1997. 

Texas is noteworthy in that its school accountability requires not only that most students

meet performance thresholds but that at-risk subgroups in each school meet them as well. 

Performance results and dropout rates are disaggregated for four student groups: African

American, Hispanic, white and economically disadvantaged. Schools must show that they

meet the performance targets overall and for student subgroups. The greatest recent

improvements registered on the Texas state assessment have been among African

American, Hispanic, and economically disadvantaged students--students traditionally at

the highest risk of school failure. 

< North Carolina’s “ABCs of Public Education” is a school accountability system that

relies on an expected growth composite based on three factors: statewide average

academic growth, the previous performance of students in the school, and a statistical

adjustment that is used when comparing the student performance from one year to the

next. Schools are categorized according to seven recognition categories. In 1997-98, 83

percent of elementary and middle schools in the state met either expected or exemplary

growth standards.

These state policies exemplify efforts to enforce school-level accountability for student

performance. This accountability is central to ending social promotion; that is, schools must be

held responsible for delivering the kind of high-quality education that students must receive in

order to reach high standards. 
19

But when states and school districts use tests to hold students accountable and tie assessments to

decisions about student promotion, there are a number of important issues to consider. The

discussion of high-stakes testing and holding students accountable for performance must be

understood in the context of the possible disproportionate effects of promotion and retention

policies on low-income and minority children. Disadvantaged children begin school without many

of the supports enjoyed by their more advantaged peers. The National Association of State

Directors of Special Education, in particular, has pointed out the disproportionate representation

of students from racial and ethnic minority groups in special education. Children in poverty are

more likely to have disabilities and therefore need special education services to a greater extent

than other children. Schools located in communities of concentrated poverty often lack important

resources, both financial and social, that are needed for academic success. Although much

research shows that access to skilled, effective teachers is an important determinant of student

performance, low-income students are often less likely than higher-income students to be taught

by skilled teachers.26 

Policies to end social promotion and raise accountability for student performance demand that

difficult issues be faced head on, particularly with regard to high-stakes tests and other student

accountability measures. Student promotion decisions should not be based on a single, highstakes assessment alone. Standardized assessments ensure some degree of consistency in making

promotion decisions. But no single assessment tool is sensitive enough to capture all the relevant

information related to identifying what the needs of particular students are, how those needs are

best addressed, and when difficulties have been adequately overcome. State or district

assessments need to be used as one of a variety of indicators. Consideration must also be given to

the role of teacher judgment and the inventory of assessments teachers and tutors use every day to

monitor the continual progress of students. Leaders must take care when deciding whether, and

how, high-stakes tests should be used to make promotion decisions.27 The federal legal and civil

rights principles that educators should be aware of are as follows: 

< Adequate educational justification. There must be an adequate educational justification

for the use of a test for high-stakes purpose. Establishing “qualitative achievement

standards” and encouraging academic achievement are examples of adequate educational

justifications for using a statewide or districtwide test to determine student promotion.

< Professionally acceptable evidence regarding test validity and reliability. When a

statewide or districtwide test is being used to determine student promotion, the state or

district must be able to provide professionally acceptable evidence that the test is valid and

reliable for the purpose for which it is being used. If a state or district chooses to use a

test as a principal criterion for decisions about student promotion, the test must be

designed for this use and there must be evidence that it is appropriate to use the test as a

sole or principal criterion. When a high-stakes test is designed to measure whether

students have learned specific skills or acquired specific knowledge, the test needs to be

representative of the knowledge and skills the state or school district intends to measure.
20

< Adequate prior notice to students and parents. When a statewide or districtwide test

will have high-stakes consequences, students and parents must receive adequate prior

notice that the state or district intends to establish new requirements. The notice must be

far enough in advance of the implementation of the requirements to ensure that students

have sufficient time and opportunity to learn the material to be tested.

< Alignment between curriculum standards and the assessment and between the

assessment and instruction. When a state or district establishes curriculum standards

that will be the basis for high-stakes statewide or districtwide assessments to measure

student achievement, schools have a responsibility to provide instruction in the knowledge

and skills being measured by the test. Parents should be informed about how they can

help at home and in the schools so that students are well prepared.

< Consideration for disparate effects on the basis of race, national origin, or gender. 

When a statewide or districtwide high-stakes test has a significant impact based on race,

national origin, or gender, the use of the test must be educationally necessary. This means

that the test must be valid and reliable for the particular purpose used. Even when the test

is valid and reliable for the purpose for which it is being used, consideration must be given

to whether there are any practicable alternative practices that would effectively measure

the knowledge and skills the state or district intends to measure with less adverse impact. 

< Equal educational opportunity for students with limited English proficiency. Under

federal civil rights laws, school districts have an obligation to ensure that students with

limited English proficiency (LEP) are provided with a program that enables them to

acquire English-language skills and instructs them in the knowledge and skills that all

students are required to master. When states or school districts use tests for high-stakes

purposes, they must ensure that the tests effectively measure students’ knowledge and

skills in the particular content area being assessed. Furthermore, the students must be

provided “appropriate accommodations” to ensure valid and reliable results. Depending

on the nature and purpose of the test and the particular needs of the LEP student,

appropriate accommodations may include providing a valid and reliable version of the test

in the student’s native language, extended time, or the use of bilingual dictionaries. LEP

students must be included in statewide or districtwide assessments unless there is a valid

educational justification for their exclusion. In situations in which students are excluded

from a particular statewide or district assessment, comparable information about these

students’ academic progress must be collected.

< Participation of students with disabilities in statewide or districtwide assessments. 

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA), school districts have a responsibility to provide students with

disabilities with a free appropriate public education. Providing effective instruction in the

core curriculum for students with disabilities is an important aspect of this requirement. 

Under federal law, students with disabilities must be included in the same state and

districtwide assessments of student achievement as nondisabled students, unless the
21

America Counts

To be prepared for college and promising careers, students need to master advanced skills in

mathematics, science, and technology. However, far too many students finish high school without

mastering the challenging mathematics necessary for success in higher education and in our

competitive, knowledge-based economy. Although U.S. fourth graders perform above the

international average and our nation’s students successfully acquire basic computation skills,

mathematical performance begins to drop in the middle grades, as other nations introduce advanced

content while the U.S. curriculum continues to focus on arithmetic.

Students who take algebra and geometry attend college at much higher rates than those who do not,

and low-income students who take algebra and geometry are almost three times as likely to go to

college as those who do not. Moreover, mathematics teaches ways of thinking that apply in every

workplace and are essential for informed civic participation.

The U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have set forth a

strategy to improve student achievement in mathematics by focusing on six critical areas: building

public awareness, improving professional development in math, encouraging a more challenging math

curriculum for all students, using resources effectively to support math instruction, providing extra

learning time and help for students who need it, and using research and assessment for continuous

improvement. For a complete overview of the Department’s math initiatives, visit

<http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math> on the web.

student’s individualized education program team (IEP team) determines either that

individual modifications in the administration of the assessments need to be provided or

that a particular assessment is not appropriate for the student. In these cases the student’s

IEP must include a statement of why that assessment is not appropriate and how the

student will be assessed. If the IEP team properly makes individualized decisions about

the participation of each child with a disability in general state and districtwide

assessments, including the use of appropriate accomodations, modifications, and individual

modifications in administration, it will be necessary to use alternate assessments for a

relatively small percentage of children with disabilities. The IDEA also requires states or

local education agencies to develop guidelines for students with disabilities who cannot

take part in state and districtwide tests to participate in alternate assessments.

Concentrate on providing high quality curriculum and instruction for all

students

We know that if social promotion is to end, all adults must do their part to enable students to

meet high standards. The central task of educators is clear--to provide curriculum and instruction

that help all students reach challenging academic standards. To accomplish this, schools must

concentrate on learning, and states and districts must help move standards into classroom

practice. 
22

Effective Schoolwide Programs

City View Elementary School, Worcester, Massachusetts

According to principal Donald Shea, the schoolwide program at City View Elementary School is

designed for “all students in our school, so we can use [our federal] funds to benefit all of them.” The

school enrolls approximately 675 students in grades K-6. Fifty percent of the students are Hispanic,

43 percent are white, 5 percent are African American, and 2 percent are Asian. Approximately 61

percent come from low-income families.

The school focuses on building literacy, experience-based learning, and a safe and nurturing

environment. The academic programs, written by teachers to reflect the state curriculum frameworks,

encourage students to use reading, writing, and math to approach problems creatively, independently,

and cooperatively. Teachers combine several research-based instructional models to support

curriculum changes in all content areas, before, during, and after school--and even in the summer. 

Experienced faculty provide in-class reading, math, and science support and serve as mentors to

colleagues. Five teachers serve as part-time reading teachers, and a Spanish-language teacher helps

student in the K-6 bilingual program.

Parents participate in planning and daily decision making. The school keeps them informed through

notices, newsletters, conferences with teachers, and telephone calls. A parent compact defines school

and home responsibilities to promote children’s learning. 

-from Implementing Schoolwide Programs: An Ideabook

Classrooms with high standards are places where expectations are clearly communicated and

displayed to students so that all know and understand them. In such classrooms, examples of

student work are prominent and teachers make concrete connections between standards and the

activities they pursue with their students. A classroom striving to reach high standards does not

necessarily specify a certain type of instructional method or pedagogy. Rather, it involves good

instruction by teachers who know the content they are teaching, engage students in learning, and

challenge them to strive for greater accomplishments. 

Studies of high-achieving schools that serve overwhelmingly disadvantaged children reveal

important lessons for schools facing the dual challenge of raising standards and reducing social

promotion. Most importantly, schools that have markedly improved student performance have

high expectations for achievement and offer challenging and demanding coursework.

Consequently, states, districts, and schools must concentrate on high expectations for early

literacy, and encourage all students to learn basic and advanced mathematics skills in elementary

school, enroll in challenging prerequisite courses early in secondary school, and build on their

education in high school with rigorous coursework. 

To end social promotion, schools must focus on improving classroom instruction--and direct 

resources toward that goal. Without attention to this central issue, the other strategies featured in
23

Helping Families Help Children to Learn

< Parenting workshops can train parents in child development and ways to support

academic learning. Parenting workshops can also cover such topics as nutrition, child

abuse, and nurturing and discipline strategies. 

< Parent resource centers in schools can help draw parents into the school community

while providing important information and assistance. Useful resources include videos,

aids, and tips on helping their children succeed in core subjects.

< Family literacy programs can engage parents lacking education or limited in 

English in their own learning and that of their children’s.

< Home visits can be conducted by qualified staff to help parents reinforce their

children’s learning at home.

< Parental participation in decision making at school can be developed by introducing

parents to school leaders, committees, and policies and giving parents the information

and support they need to join in decision making at the school. 

< Parent-school compacts can outline the mutual responsibilities of home and school for

helping students achieve high standards.

< Volunteer training can be conducted to educate parents about volunteer opportunities

within the school, rather than simply asking and expecting parents to get involved.

< Outreach strategies can keep all parents informed of school activities and policies. 

Outreach is critical to maintaining an enduring school-parent partnership.

< Staff training is necessary to provide teachers, principals, and school staff with

strategies on how to work with parents.

this guide are useless. Ending social promotion requires a comprehensive approach. The effort

to concentrate on learning and improve what happens in the classroom is bolstered by other

strategies featured in this guide, such as ensuring that there is a well-prepared teacher in every

classroom, reducing class size, extending learning time, and creating programs for students who

are not ready for promotion. 

Include families

Substantial research shows that educators cannot do their jobs alone. For this reason, families and

communities must help reinforce what students learn in school. Schools and students cannot be

held accountable for performance outside the context of the efforts of families and communities. 
24

Parental involvement in education is critical to academic success. Children whose parents are

involved in their education earn higher grades, have higher test scores, attend school more

regularly, complete more homework, demonstrate a better attitude and better behavior, graduate

from high school at higher rates, and are more likely to go on to higher education than do children

whose parents are less involved. The implications for efforts to eliminate social promotion are

clear: increasing family involvement in schools will help students to learn so that they are prepared

for the next grade and for school success. 28

Yet despite the value of parental involvement, many parents remain uninvolved. Teachers often

complain about the lack of parental involvement at school and assume that such families are

indifferent. But often, particularly in low-income communities, parents often feel uncomfortable

or intimidated at their children’s school. Some parents were low-achieving students themselves,

and retain feelings of inadequacy and failure after their own school experiences. 

Many parents also see teachers as unwilling or uninterested in working together with them. 

Several studies have confirmed that although most parents truly care about their children’s

education, they may not know how to help with it. Some parents express the wish that teachers

would make a greater effort to involve them in their children’s learning. According to one recent

survey, 79 percent of parents report wanting to learn more about how to be involved in their

children’s education.29 

Integral to the success of parental involvement in education is good communication between

school and families. The communication cannot be only formal and one-way; schools cannot wait

to communicate with parents only when problems arise. Particularly as students enter middle and

high school, parental involvement is critical to ensuring academic success. It is during these years

that children begin to grapple with how to deal with authority, handle independence, and respond

to social pressures, and they become more at risk for dropping out of school. Despite the

importance of parental involvement, studies show that parents tend to decrease their school

involvement once their children move to middle and high school. Therefore, it is important to

develop strategies that will draw parents into schools, particularly in the later grades.30 

Because a key factor in supporting family involvement is the level of support and information

provided by schools in promoting an active partnership, Title I is designed to encourage such

efforts. All Title I schools are required to develop, with parents, a school-parent compact that

recognizes their shared responsibility for learning and outlines how each will support high 

achievement by students. The U.S. Department of Education’s Compact for Learning is a guide

that helps schools, families, and students think through their shared responsibility for achievement. 

Suggestions for parents include:

< Working with the school to plan a rigorous academic program and discussing with

children the importance of working hard to get the most out of school;

< Monitoring student progress and supervising the completion of homework;
25

Mentoring Programs

Mentors are concerned adults who offer youth support, guidance, and encouragement. Although the

specific roles of mentors may vary quite a bit, every good mentor must do two things: make a

connection and use that connection to convey a positive message. Mentors come from all walks of

life. Volunteers come from large corporations, small businesses, churches, hospitals, charitable

institutions, and colleges, just to name a few. Mentoring programs commonly focus on tutoring and

academic assistance, access to college, career preparation, and role modeling. Research shows that

mentoring can make a difference.

For example, a study of students matched with adult mentors by Big Brothers Big Sisters of America

showed that after 18 months, students with mentors were less likely to engage in risky behavior. 

Students with mentors were less likely to begin to use illegal drugs or alcohol. Students with

mentors also were less likely to skip school and felt more confident in their school performance. 

-From Yes, You Can: A Guide for Establishing Mentoring Programs to Prepare Youth for College

< Reading at home together and encouraging children to read at least 30 minutes a day;

< Pledging to attend back-to-school events and teacher conferences, and volunteering for

at least one event per semester to support the school; and

< Participating in school decisions by attending meetings and serving on advisory

councils.

If schools are to end social promotion and hold students more accountable for performance,

compacts can help parents and families define responsibilities for helping students meet academic

standards.

Involve community stakeholders

Community resources must be tapped to help students meet high expectations. Businesses must

take a leading role in helping students meet standards. Businesses depend on the products of the

American public education system but often complain about the quality of students and must

spend resources on remediation for students who graduate from schools without the skills

necessary for work and careers. 

Businesses have the power to help end social promotion by connecting academic performance to

future work opportunities. Businesses can offer internships to students and make the connection

between school and work tangible by asking to review student transcripts when interviewing

students for jobs. 
26

Business and community members can help end social promotion by becoming mentors to

students and by spending time in schools as tutors and teachers. These connections between

school and community can be a powerful motivating force for students who may otherwise see

their academic careers as a dead end. 
27

Bright Beginnings: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools

The public prekindergarten program in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools, called Bright

Beginnings, is funded mainly through Title I funds. As a result of a comprehensive planning effort, the

school district decided to use 85 percent of its Title I funds to get children ready for school in

collaboration with Head Start, special education, and other public and private partners. 

Bright Beginnings serves children who are selected through an assessment process that uses

developmentally appropriate measures. Children are served in one of three prekindergarten centers or in

prekindergarten classrooms in neighborhood elementary schools within the district.

Staff at Bright Beginnings actively engage families in their children’s learning at home and at school,

and parents report tremendous satisfaction with the program and with their involvement in the growth,

development, and learning of their children. The program supports a caring environment and gives fouryear-olds a literacy-rich, resource-rich, full-day prekindergarten experience. All teachers are early

childhood specialists who have at least a bachelor’s degree and are certified to teach by the state. 

Professional development is continuous. Each classroom of 18 or 19 children has a teacher and a

teacher’s aide. The district has developed its own prekindergarten curriculum, content standards, and

performance expectations that set high expectations for every child’s growth, development, and learning.

The program, which now serves over 1,900 children, plans to expand to 4,000 children--the number of

children identified by the school district as needing high-quality preschool services to get them ready for

school. 

Starting Early

To prepare students to meet high standards, we must start early. From years of experience in

observing, studying, and teaching young children, we have learned of the importance of the early

childhood years. We know that young children learn by having a range of frequent, positive early

learning experiences. Early childhood education can help children develop broad knowledge and

higher-level skills, as well as help educators identify children at risk of school failure and take

steps to ensure their readiness for school and successful learning in the early grades.

Provide opportunities for preschool

Given what we know about the importance of children’s earliest years, it is imperative that all

children have access to high-quality early care and educational experiences to help them get ready

for school. These efforts must involve educating parents, offering children and their families a

broad range of interesting experiences, and providing much better early care and education

settings than many children now experience. 
28

All states fund some type of initiatives for children from birth to age 3, some of which meet new

parents in hospitals at the birth of their child and provide follow-up home visits to ensure that

parents understand their parenting responsibilities and have access to support services for

themselves and their children when needed. The federally funded Head Start program has

expanded to serve children birth to age 3 and their families, and is reaching out to pregnant

women before their children are born. And, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,

Part C, states receive financial assistance for maintaining and implementing statewide,

comprehensive, multidisciplinary systems to provide early intervention services to infants and

toddlers with disabilities from birth through age 2, and their families. Under Part B of IDEA,

states also receive additional federal financial assistance to fund the costs of providing special

education and related services to children with disabilities ages 3 to 5.

High-quality early childhood and preschool education programs not only give children enriching

and stimulating experiences to nurture their growth, development, and learning, but in many cases

offer parents access to resources that can help strengthen their parenting skills. For example,

Chicago’s “Cradle to Classroom” program works with 700 young mothers each year to train them

in the skills they need to stimulate their children’s minds as well as to care for them physically,

emotionally, and socially. The city’s “Parents as Teachers” program trains liaison personnel to

visit the homes of 1,500 preschoolers to help develop preliteracy skills.

When young children participate in a high-quality preschool, qualified professionals can assess

children’s developmental progress across all developmental domains--physical well-being and

motor development, social and emotional development, approaches to learning, language

development, and cognition and general knowledge. This is especially important for children with

limited English language skills as well as children who are experiencing or are at risk of

developmental delays and disabilities. These children often have much less access to preschool

learning experiences than other children do. Linking children and families with targeted early

intervention services as well as high-quality preschool programs is critical to helping all children

reach appropriate developmental milestones in the acquisition of important early language and

literacy skills. 
29

The Georgia Voluntary Prekindergarten Program

The Georgia Voluntary Prekindergarten Program was launched in 1992. Alarmed by an unacceptably

high dropout rate and increasing teen pregnancy rates, the state decided to make a significant

investment in early prevention. The program was instituted to provide children with high-quality

preschool experiences necessary for future school success and to provide resources and support for

parents to ensure that success. With a current annual infusion of $2l0 million from the state lottery

fund, approximately 70 percent of all eligible four-year-olds attended preschool during the 1997-98

school year. A critical component of this program is its outreach to the more than 40 percent of fouryear-olds who have been identified as being at risk of school failure because of economic disadvantage. 

Eligible children receive before- and after-school care, free and reduced-price meals, and

transportation. Prekindergarten programs are operating in public and private elementary and

secondary schools, postsecondary vocational technical institutes, private and state colleges, private

nonprofit and for-profit child care learning centers, Department of Family and Children’s Services

offices, Head Start sites, hospitals, military bases, and YMCA/YWCAs. The program grew from

serving 750 children during the 1992-93 school year to serving 60,000 children during the 1997-98

school year. 

Families can choose from a variety of settings and curricula. The school-readiness goals of the

program emphasize growth in language and literacy, math concepts, science, arts, physical

development, and personal and social competence. Standards for classrooms require interactive

learning opportunities that are age appropriate, meet individual needs, and enhance children’s feelings

of comfort, security, and self-confidence. All teachers in the program must have early childhood

training and must participate in staff development and training activities. 

Parents are encouraged to volunteer in their child’s classroom and to participate in parent-teacher

conferences, meetings, parent group activities, and workshops. Parents are also strongly encouraged

to read to their children daily. Family resource coordinators support parents’ efforts to become

involved in their child’s educational development process, and parents have opportunities to obtain

information and needed services, including adult education, employment counseling, literacy classes,

and health services. 

A longitudinal study (1993-96) conducted by the Department of Early Childhood Education at Georgia

State University using comparison groups of 315 children indicates that children in the Prekindergarten

Program surpassed the comparison children on teacher ratings in five different areas of development,

promotion to first grade, and attendance. At the completion of first grade, the Prekindergarten

Program children achieved higher scores on 10 separate measures of academic development and

achievement. 
30

Preventing Reading Difficulties in

Young Children

Childhood environments that support early

literacy development and excellent instruction are

important for all children. Excellent instruction

is the best intervention for children who

demonstrate problems learning to read. 

Adequate initial reading instruction requires that

children:

< Use reading to obtain meaning from

print,

< Have frequent and intensive

opportunities to read,

< Be exposed to frequent, regular spellingsound relationships,

< Learn about the nature of the alphabetic

writing system, and 

< Understand the structure of spoken

words.

—National Research Council

Emphasize early childhood and family literacy

Starting early is critical in helping students develop literacy skills. According to the National

Assessment of Educational Progress, more than one child in six has problems learning to read

during the first three years in school. Children who do not learn to read make up more than half of

the special education population. Today, proficient readers remain a minority in the United

States, with only about a third of students in

grades 3, 8, and 12 attaining at least the

proficient level in reading.31 Studies reveal

that students who do not learn to read are

blocked from achievement in every other

subject in school. 

The Administration has committed to

ensuring that all students can read well and

independently by the end of the third grade. 

Therefore, reading must be introduced

early, integrated into preschool activities,

and reinforced at home. 

A recent report by the National Research

Council suggests that preschool programs

be designed to include attention to skills

known to predict future reading

achievement. Instruction should be

designed to stimulate verbal interaction,

enrich children’s vocabulary, provide

practice with sounds, develop knowledge of

print, and instill motivation early for

reading.32

Through family literacy programs, parents

can acquire the skills needed to help

children learn to read at home, develop

expanded vocabularies, get ready for

school, and become high achievers. Even

Start is a family literacy program that extends early childhood services, literacy training, parenting

training, and English-language instruction to many families with limited proficiency in English as

well as English-speaking parents who lack a high school education. Even Start supports

intergenerational literacy projects that combine early childhood education and literacy training for

their parents.
31

Two years ago President Clinton issued a challenge to every American to help all children become

good readers. On October 21, 1998, the President signed the Reading Excellence Act. The

legislation will help more than 500,000 children from prekindergarten through third grade develop

literacy skills. The $260 million in funds will support professional development, out-of-school

tutoring, and family literacy projects.
32

If you are going to have the standards, you’re

going to have to have support for the

standards. You have to give students an

opportunity. Don’t just say “sink or swim.”

—Philadelphia parent

The Individual Acceleration Plan:

Tacoma, Washington

Since the 1997-98 school year, Tacoma has been implementing an initiative that uses a series of

assessments to determine eligibility for promotion to grades six and nine. Promotion decisions are

based on nine measurements: three writing samples, three math projects, a curriculum-reference test, a

reading comprehension test, and a teacher assessment on student report cards. 

Moreover, the policy addresses the needs of at-risk students. Such students are identified and put on an

individual acceleration plan that includes structured family involvement, targeted intervention, afterschool activities, and tutoring. For students who still do not reach grade level, the district mandates

summer school. When the students are assessed at the end of the summer, any who still cannot meet

requirements are placed in a class that does not simply repeat the previous year’s material but targets

specific areas of need on an individual basis.

Strengthening Learning Opportunities in the Classroom

If students are to be held more accountable for their academic performance and made to face

consequences for not meeting standards, schools must provide adequate opportunities for

students to meet expectations on time. Schools must embrace a comprehensive approach to

ending social promotion by using data effectively to identify at-risk students early, before they fall

too far behind; ensuring that all students have access to highly qualified and well-trained teachers;

and taking advantage of research-based practices to enhance student achievement. These

practices include alternative student grouping, cooperative learning, tutoring, and reducing class

size. Schools must also be prepared to accommodate students with special needs.

Identify and intervene early with students at risk of falling behind

As education researcher Linda Darling-Hammond explains, “Ensuring that students get the

specific help they need requires rich information about what they know and can do as well as how

they learn.” Not all students who experience

difficulty in school do so for the same reasons. 

Some students have learning disabilities,

others have behavioral problems, are not

ready for school, or face other challenges in

their families and in their lives outside school. 

Some students barely miss meeting the

standards while others perform at levels

considerably behind their peers. The point is

that in order to help all students meet standards, educators must understand the nature of

children’s difficulties, and they must do so early. 
33

Analyzing and Using Data to Improve Programs and Practices: 

Fritsche Middle School, Milwaukee

Decision making at Fritsche Middle School in Milwaukee is based on the question, “How do you know

where you are unless you measure it?” The school has designed a continuous improvement profile

system for gathering data and using it to plan, define, and document progress. 

Previously, the school relied heavily on district information, but the type and format of data provided

by the district could not help the school make decisions about local improvement. In addition,

communication between the district and schools was a problem. So, with the help of the North Central

Regional Education Laboratory, the school developed its own system of data-driven decision making. 

Fritsche decided to look not only at standardized scores as a way to measure success, but also at the

performance of former students, and to collect other data through periodic reports, attendance records,

discipline referrals, and other sources. Surveys of the entire school community--administrators,

teachers, staff, students, parents, and former students--are administered annually.

In one example of the school’s data-driven decision-making process, an examination of data at Fritsche

showed that regular attendance by itself did not raise student achievement. Even at 90 percent

attendance, students were falling behind. The school held a session with regularly attending but lowperforming sixth-graders and found that the students were often distracted in class and had trouble

keeping track of their assignments. After that session, one-on-one tutoring was emphasized at the

sixth-grade level. Each team of sixth-grade teachers was given resources to help respond to the

problem of failing students. In one team, teachers conducted the tutoring; in another, eighth-grade

students helped their younger school-mates organize their assignments. 

After one semester of the tutoring program, the number of students with a grade-point average of “C”

or lower fell by half and no students got a “D” or lower.

High-quality assessment data can be used in a variety of ways: to inform teachers about gaps in

their students’ learning; to inform students and their parents about the academic areas to which

they need to devote more attention and those in which they are succeeding; to help schools

evaluate their proficiency; and to enable the public to learn how successful their schools have been

in improving student achievement. As the example below illustrates, assessment is useful only to

the extent that it can inform teachers and be used for ongoing student and school improvement.

Yet, districts and schools have found it difficult to use data effectively. Schools cannot rely solely

on aggregated data from state or district assessments to determine how well students are

performing because such information usually lacks the depth to adequately identify particular

problems and design interventions accordingly. More important, state and district assessments

generally come too late in the game. By third or fourth grade, when most states administer their

first standards-based assessments, students with special needs may already be well behind, and

each passing year makes it more difficult to catch up. 
34

School districts should make every effort

to...provide systematic supports for ongoing

professional development. Such

opportunities should give teachers sustained

opportunities--not just hit-and-run

workshops--for learning about successful

teaching strategies. This requires scheduled

time for teachers to plan and study together,

to learn about effective strategies, to examine

curriculum and student work, to observe good

practice, and to give and receive coaching.

—Linda Darling-Hammond

In order to properly address student needs, principals and teachers need to gather rich data on

individual student performance and gather that data often. Schools must also use student data to

continuously improve their programs and classroom practices. School staff need to have access

to the assessment data gathered on their students by the state and district, and they need to know

how to read and interpret the data. 

Ensure that there is a well-prepared teacher in every classroom

To be successful, strategies to improve student achievement require good teachers. Yet recent

research reveals a troubling picture of the state of our nation’s teaching force. According to the

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF), which compiled hundreds of

studies on the subject, more than one-quarter of newly hired teachers have not fully met licensing

standards; 12 percent enter with no license at all and another 15 percent enter with only a 

temporary, provisional, or emergency license. Compounding the problem is the fact that many

teachers lack expertise in the subject they are

teaching. Overall, nearly 28 percent of

teachers of academic subjects have neither an

undergraduate major nor a minor in their

main assignment fields.33 

High rates of retention and social promotion

in many of our schools underscore the need

to employ well-qualified and well-prepared

teachers. Efforts to end social promotion

must include systemic changes in teacher

preparation, recruitment, and support. States

and districts must end the practices of hiring

unqualified teachers and provide incentives

for highly qualified teachers to teach in highpoverty schools. The drive to boost student

achievement, coupled with the ongoing efforts to implement standards-based reform, demands a

radically altered professional development structure. 

Teachers need to deepen their content knowledge and learn new teaching methods. While more

than half of full-time public school teachers report participation in various professional

development programs, many of the activities offered are not adequately designed to address

classroom instruction. The very concept of professional development needs to be broadened. 
35

Good Teaching Does Matter

A recent report released by the Education Trust presents research that substantiates what most people

understand as common sense--good teaching does matter. Studies of student achievement and teacher

effectiveness provide convincing evidence that teachers do make a difference and that the effects of

good teachers are long-lived. Findings from studies in Tennessee, Dallas, and Boston reveal that,

whatever their background or disadvantages, students taught by effective teachers achieved

substantially larger gains than students taught by less effective teachers. For example, the average

reading scores of a group of fourth graders in Dallas assigned to three highly effective teachers rose

from the 59th percentile to the 76th percentile by grade 6. A slightly higher achieving group taught by

less effective teachers fell from the 60th percentile in fourth grade to the 42nd percentile in sixth

grade.

After examining studies of teacher effectiveness, the authors of the report found that strong verbal and

math skills, deep content knowledge, and teaching skills are critical characteristics for good teachers. 

The report also suggests the elements of a strategy to assure that all students are taught by highly

qualified teachers, including the following:

< Standards for entry into the profession,

< Accountability measures for colleges and universities that prepare teachers,

< Professional development for existing teachers,

< Assurance that poor and minority children have teachers who are at least as qualified as the

ones who teach other students,

< Policies to let parents know about the qualifications of teachers instructing their children, and

< Recruitment and rewards to attract the best candidates into teaching.

In accordance with research findings and the professional development practices of exemplary

districts and schools across the nation, the U.S. Department of Education has developed 10

principles of high-quality professional development. Professional development:

1. Recognizes that teachers are central to student learning, yet includes all other members of

the school community;

2. Focuses on individual, collegial, and organizational improvement;
36

3. Respects and nurtures the intellectual and leadership capacity of teachers, principals, and

others in the school community;

4. Reflects the best available research and practice in teaching, learning, and leadership;

5. Enables teachers to develop further expertise in subject content, teaching strategies, use of

technologies, and other essential elements of teaching to high standards;

6. Promotes continuous inquiry and improvement embedded in the daily life of schools;

7. Is planned collaboratively by those who will participate in and facilitate the activity;

8. Requires substantial time and other resources;

9. Is driven by a coherent long-term plan; and

10. Is evaluated ultimately on the basis of its impact on teacher effectiveness and student 

learning. This assessment of effectiveness guides subsequent professional development

efforts. 
37

Exemplary Professional Development:

H. D. Hilley Elementary School, El Paso, Texas

 

At H. D. Hilley Elementary School, support from the school district, partnerships with outside

organizations, and a focus on both students and teachers as learners contribute to the success of the

school’s professional development and gains in student performance. H. D. Hilley is a high-poverty

school where 96 percent of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch and many students have

limited proficiency in English. Teachers at H. D. Hilley believe that improving student learning is the 

ultimate measure of the success of their professional development--and recent scores on the Texas

Assessment of Academic Skills reflect their professional development efforts. Between 1995 and

1997, the proportion of third graders mastering all objectives on the test increased from 30 to 48

percent.

 

H. D. Hilley has been able to achieve these improvements largely because the school improvement

team--including teachers, parents, community members and administrators--determines what the school

improvement goals will be and how the school will target its professional development resources. 

Teams involving all the teachers in the school develop strategies to support the goals, and all

professional development efforts are linked to these goals. Teams of teachers meet regularly to

identify, secure, and assess their professional development. 

 

To involve the community, H.D. Hilley sponsors an active outreach center run by parents. The El

Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence, the College of Education at the University of El Paso,

and the National Science Foundation-funded Urban Systemic Initiative also support the school’s

professional development activities and commitment to academic excellence.

 

States, school districts, and schools can also help ensure that every classroom has a good teacher

by:

< Providing mentors for new teachers. To successfully navigate their first year of

teaching, new teachers need the support and guidance a veteran teacher can provide. Peer

mentoring helps schools retain the most talented and qualified teachers. 

< Preparing teachers to encourage family involvement. Strategies on how to work with

families and engage them in their children’s schooling rarely appear in the curricula of

most professional development programs. Yet parents often perceive teachers as

unwilling to accept, or uninterested in having, their participation. To have successful

parental involvement, schools must operate under the assumption that most parents really

do want to help their children succeed in school.34 Teachers need to develop a broad

range of skills and knowledge in order to work effectively with parents.
38

One of the most critical areas on which we,

as a nation, need to focus is what we must do

to prepare the next generation of teachers. 

In the next ten years we need to recruit 

2.2 million teachers....Teachers are the heart

and soul of the renaissance of American

education, but they are being asked to know

more and do more than ever before. We need

to give them support so they can continue to

help our children learn to high standards.

—Richard Riley, Secretary of Education

< Establishing teacher networks. Teacher networks bring colleagues together to focus on

subject matter and to deepen teachers’ teaching skills and comprehension of content. 

They offer teachers a professional community in which they can share ideas, experience,

and expertise and serve as a support for one another. Networks are highly respected by

teachers and appear to have positive effects on teacher motivation, knowledge of subject

matter, and teaching strategies.

< Providing incentives for teachers

to become certified and teach in

high-poverty schools. The problems

of high teacher turnover, under

qualified teachers, and teaching out

of field are especially severe in highpoverty schools, where many

teachers lack either a college major

or minor in their primary field.35

Unfortunately, new teachers with the

least amount of training are most

likely to be placed with the most

disadvantaged students. If all

students, particularly our nation’s

most disadvantaged students, are to reach high standards, states and districts must develop

strategies for making sure that good teachers stay and are supported in needy schools.

Use research-based practices

One of the challenges teachers face is how to effectively teach those children who fail to respond

to traditional teaching methods and fall behind. Research provides a great deal of guidance to

educators and policymakers about promising strategies for helping all students achieve at high

levels, such as innovative ways of grouping students, cooperative learning, keeping teachers

together with students for more than one year (looping), tutoring, and reducing class sizes.

The Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program helps schools fund a number of

reform models that combine numerous strategies from what we know about good practice into a

comprehensive educational program. For example, more than 1,100 schools across the nation

are using Success for All, a program of reorganized reading instruction, to help all students meet

challenging standards. The program provides for at least 90 minutes of daily reading instruction

in classes grouped according to performance. One of the key elements is continual assessment of

student progress. Schools implementing the program assess student performance at least once
39

Kentucky’s Ungraded Primary

Program

Kentucky’s more than 800 primary school programs

seek to meet the needs of each child through an

academic program referred to as Continuous

Progress. Students progress through primary school

at their own rate without comparison to the rates of

other students or consideration to the number of

years in school. The pace of a student’s progress

through the curriculum is based on the individual

strengths, needs, and interests of the student. 

Children move from one classroom grouping to

another when the teacher, parents, and

administrators determine that it is developmentally

appropriate for that particular child to do so,

maximizing student achievement.

every eight weeks. The frequent assessments allow teachers to develop instructional plans for

students with special needs and to move students into and out of groups as they make progress. 

Success for All draws on all school staff to help students learn to read. In addition to a structured

reading curriculum, Success for All offers one-on-one reading tutors and a preschool and

kindergarten component to start early in preparing children to read.

To help low-performing children learn, many schools around the country have introduced

innovative grouping practices. If teachers

are skilled in using them, these flexible

grouping strategies can help improve student

academic achievement. 

The various grouping strategies detailed in

this guide, however, differ greatly from the

most commonly known ability-grouping

practice, known as tracking. Tracking locks

students into groups, often over the entire

period of their education. Tracking is

antithetical to the belief that all children can

learn and reach high standards. 

Furthermore, research shows that tracking

policies disproportionately group together

African American and Hispanic students,

who are far more likely than their peers to be

improperly judged to have learning deficits

and limited potential.36 

If implemented properly, changes in student

grouping practices can benefit at-risk students. But the practice requires a common curriculum

and standards that all students are expected to meet, extraordinary professional development, and

diligent, regular assessment of student progress and needs. Without this support structure, these

practices can easily fall into a system of tracking. 

Multi age grouping. Multi age grouping is a strategy that can help counter the growing numbers

of young children who are retained or socially promoted in the early grades. This practice mixes

children of different ages and grade levels in the same classroom. In a Multi age classroom,

teachers focus more on individual student progress rather than grade-level expectations. 

Furthermore, because Multi age classrooms often emphasize project-based curricula, cooperation,

and the sharing of knowledge, the strategy has been known to improve student performance.

Within-class ability grouping. Within-class ability grouping is an approach by which students are

divided into two to three ability-based groups within a class. Research has demonstrated that this

grouping practice is especially useful for those students who have fallen behind in reading and
40

Alternative Student 

Grouping Practices:

Marshall Middle School, Chicago

Marshall Middle School is committed to creating

smaller learning environments, team teaching,

flexible scheduling, and grouping for students. The

school is divided into four “pods” that occupy

separate wings of the school building. All students

attend core classes within their pods. To further

maintain continuity in instruction, teachers practice

“looping” by following their students from seventh to

eighth grade. 

math. Unlike tracking, where students rarely move from level to level, within-class ability

grouping employs smaller groups within a classroom and emphasizes movement across levels as

students make progress. Within-class ability grouping must also employ frequent assessment of

students to enable them to move easily to the next level when they are ready.

Looping. Looping is the practice of having a teacher stay with a group of students for more than

one year. This approach cuts down on the annual back-to-school time spent on learning names,

going over classroom procedures, and assessing the needs and skill levels of new students. 

Looping allows teachers the

opportunity to build lasting and

supportive relationships with students

as they move with their class from year

to year. Because looping permits

teachers to assess students over longer

blocks of time, during which children

have a chance to catch up or develop

further skills, looping can reduce the

incidence of retention and social

promotion. 

Cooperative learning. Cooperative

learning is another grouping practice

that has been linked to higher student

achievement. Cooperative learning

occurs when small groups of students with varying levels of ability cooperate on projects within a

class. It is a learning strategy that can be used in either the Multi age or the single-age classroom. 

Together the children do coursework and share the responsibility for failing or succeeding at the

task. 

Cooperative learning is a favored model for managing heterogeneity in a classroom with a wide

range of basic academic skills. Experts promote its use as a promising practice for all students

because it encourages interaction among students of diverse backgrounds and abilities. In

addition, considerable research indicates that cooperative learning particularly benefits lowachievers, the students most prone to retention or social promotion. 

Tutoring. Tutoring is a successful alternative to and support for teaching in a large group

setting, particularly for students who have trouble learning basic skills. Because tutoring is

individualized, it can adapt to a child’s pace, learning style, and level of comprehension. It also

serves to motivate students who have fallen behind academically. Tutoring can ensure that

children do not fall behind in the early grades, as well as give students who are struggling the

tools to move ahead. 
41

America Reads Challenge: Read*Write*Now!

The research-based America Reads Challenge: Read*Write*Now! tutoring program links children

who need help in reading with trained volunteers or other tutors in schools and communities all

across the United States. Tutors read to or with children at least once a week for at least a halfhour, and work with children on specially targeted activities--when possible, under the guidance of

the children’s teachers--to develop basic reading skills. Children are encouraged to read with their

families or by themselves for 30 minutes a night, four days a week. Free materials supporting the

America Reads Challenge: Read*Write*Now! program can be obtained on the U.S. Department

of Education's Web site, <http://www.ed.gov>, or through the Department's toll-free publications

numbers, 1-877-433-7827 or 1-800-USA-LEARN. 

Tutoring programs are an opportunity for community members and businesses to get involved in

helping all children reach high standards. Tutoring also offers opportunities for students to

support one another. For example, the Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program, a cross-age tutoring

program, targets secondary school students at risk of dropping out and pairs them with

elementary school students in a tutoring experience designed to build responsibility, increase selfconfidence, and promote bonding with peers and younger children. Research indicates that such

targeted intervention can improve the academic achievement of both students. Children often

have an advantage over adults in teaching one another because children may more easily

understand and relate to other students’ problems. One study of third and sixth graders found

that student tutors were better than experienced teachers at gauging from nonverbal behavior

whether their classmates understood the lessons being taught. Also, student tutors often seem to

be particularly capable of presenting subject matter in terms that fellow students can comprehend. 

Through the interaction between students, peer tutoring has the effect of encouraging the

modeling of study skills and work habits. Research on student tutoring also has indicated that a

student at risk of school failure is more likely to relate to a student who is of the same age and

ethnic or social background than to an adult.

Although tutoring is a promising strategy to provide targeted assistance to children at risk of

retention in grade or social promotion, it needs to be carefully implemented if the desired

outcomes are to be achieved. To be effective, tutors must be trained in content and proper

tutorial and communications skills. Furthermore, tutors need the supervision and support of

teachers and administrators so that their work and the students’ progress are closely monitored. 

The support of the entire school staff is necessary for a successful tutoring program.

Reduce class size
42

Reducing Class Size: Project STAR

Tennessee's Project Star (Student-Teacher Achievement

Ratio) is the largest, longest-lasting, and most

controlled study to date on class size. The study

compared classes of 13 to 17 students with classes of

22 to 26 students, both with and without instructional

aides in the larger classes. 

The STAR study has provided key research on smaller

class size, showing that students in smaller classes

outperform similar students in larger classes. Project

STAR demonstrated that students in smaller classes 

scored higher than students in larger classes on

standardized and curriculum-based tests. This was true

for white and minority students and for students from

inner-city, urban, suburban, and rural schools. In each

grade, minorities and disadvantaged students enjoyed

greater small-class advantages than whites on some or

all measures. In addition, a smaller proportion of

students in the smaller classes were retained, and there

was more early identification of students' special needs. 

The Project Star experiment has been followed by the

Lasting Benefits Study. To date, the research findings

show higher academic achievement levels for the

students from the smaller classes persisting through at

least the eighth grade. 

President Clinton sponsored legislation in 1998 that will help to reduce class size nationally to an

average of 18 students per class in the

early elementary grades. In 1999 the

U.S. Department of Education will

distribute $1.2 billion to states and

districts to recruit, hire, and train

regular and special education teachers;

to test new teachers for academic

content knowledge; and to provide

professional development activities to

teachers. 

Reducing class size is a powerful tool

that schools can use to help children

who are failing to perform at grade

level, particularly disadvantaged

students. Research has documented

that smaller classes with fewer than 20

children can boost academic

achievement among students. A recent

initiative in Burke County, North

Carolina, that was aimed at reducing

class size showed that teachers in small

classes were able to spend significantly

more of their time on teaching than on

disciplinary action or organizational

matters, in comparison with teachers in

large or regular-size classes.
43

Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program

Wisconsin

The Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) program in Wisconsin program grew

out of a set of recommendations made by the State Superintendent's Urban InitiativesTask Force

in 1995. The legislature provided $4.6 million in 1996-97 to implement the program in grades

K-1 in 30 schools. In 1997, it approved an additional $2.3 million to expand the program to

second grade, and in 1998 it gave the program $4.7 million to add third grade and more than 40

new schools. 

Any district with a school with more than 50 percent of its students from low-income families is

eligible to receive SAGE funding. Each district must then identify one school with at least a 30

percent poverty level to serve as its demonstration site (Milwaukee can identify up to 10 schools). 

Each participating school must enter into an "achievement improvement contract"

with the state that includes a plan for improving student achievement. In return, the school

receives $2,000 for each low-income student it enrolls to do the following:

< Reduce class size to 15 students in the designated grade levels.

< Establish lighted schools that remain open from early in the morning until late in the

evening. During those periods, the schools offer a variety of services and educational and

recreational activities.

< Develop a rigorous curriculum that promotes student academic achievement.

< Create professional development and accountability systems that establish performance

objectives.

An evaluation of the SAGE program shows that first and second grade students in SAGE schools

outperform students in demographically-similar comparison schools. SAGE students scored

significantly higher on post-tests in language arts and math and exhibited greater growth in

achievement scores than students in the comparison schools. 

Reducing class size can be an important component of any effort to reduce the incidence of social

promotion or retention, yet school leaders should consider the following factors when deciding to

institute smaller classes: 

< Smaller class size works especially well in the primary grades and with

disadvantaged and minority students. The clearest evidence of the positive effects of

smaller class sizes has been demonstrated in the early grades. Research on class size

effects in Tennessee, Indiana, Wisconsin, and North Carolina show clear academic gains

for students in smaller classes through the third grade.
44

< Professional development is key to the success of smaller classes. There is little doubt

that reducing class size can help teachers do a better job at helping children who are falling

behind. But teachers must be prepared with the necessary tools and learning strategies to

take advantage of smaller teacher-pupil ratios. Professional development activities must

be tailored to meet the needs of teachers in smaller classes. When teachers are trained to

teach a small class, they report that they have a better attitude toward students and can

better individualize instruction practices.

< Smaller class sizes must be accompanied by other strategies to eliminate social

promotion. Introducing smaller classes in a school is not a cure-all. Instead, to improve

achievement it is necessary to implement targeted reductions in class size along with other

strategies described in this guide.

Accommodate students with special needs

In implementing strategies to help all students reach high standards, districts and schools must

address the needs of students who face special challenges. Students for whom English is not their

first language, migrant students, and students with disabilities are often at particular risk of falling

behind their peers academically. 

Students with limited proficiency in English (LEP). Any discussion of efforts to help all

children reach high standards of learning must consider ways of effectively educating the large and

growing number of students with limited English-language skills in schools across the nation. 

Over the past 20 years, the percentage of Hispanic students in U.S. public schools has more than

doubled. According to recent estimates, there are more than 3.1 million LEP students in the

United States.37 These students have much higher rates of poverty, a greater tendency to drop

out of school, and much less access to early childhood services than their non-minority and

English-speaking peers. 

Students with limited English-language skills can benefit from transitional programs. Transitional

programs provide instruction in the English language as well as in the native language of students

who have been in the country for a short period of time. Such programs assess the needs of

students while helping them adjust to their new surroundings. Newcomer High School in San

Francisco, founded in 1979, was the first program of its kind in the country. In 1998, Newcomer

High School served 369 students in grades 9-11. Ninety-eight percent of students are eligible to

receive free or reduced-price lunches. About 50 percent of students are Chinese, 27 percent are

Hispanic, 9 percent are Russian, and 4 percent are Filipino. Students usually spend one year at the

school before transferring to another district high school; they study English as well as their

primary language and take bilingual or sheltered English classes in core content areas. Teachers

team up to align the school’s curriculum with district standards. The school also links students

and their families with needed social, medical, and mental health services.
45

Transitional Program for Non-English-Speaking Students:

International High School, New York City

Founded in 1985, the International High School, a collaborative project between the New York City

Board of Education and LaGuardia Community College, is a faculty-governed, multicultural

educational alternative for relatively recent arrivals to the United States. The mission of the school

is to enable each student to develop the linguistic, cognitive, and cultural skills necessary for

success in high school, college, and beyond. Students must have been in the United States for less

than four years to attend the International High School. 

The school emphasizes heterogeneous, collaborative groupings of students as well as careeroriented internships for students. The classes are organized into thematic, interdisciplinary studies. 

Almost all students take college courses through the community college. The campus is open

during the week for more hours than the average school day and is open on the weekends for

students to take advantage of the resources available to them in a college setting. 

To meet graduation requirements, students must present four years of successful course evaluations

and portfolios of their best work, including a research paper, literary essay, science

project/experiment, application of highest level of math attainment, personal expression of

creativity, native/foreign language paper, a written self-evaluation, and an oral defense. The

International High School has greater than 90 percent rates of attendance, course passing, and

graduation.

In addition to being offered special transitional and other programs to meet their needs, students

with limited English proficiency also must be encouraged to take the same challenging

coursework as their peers. Recent studies show that many students, particularly Hispanic, African

American, and disadvantaged youth, do not now take challenging courses such as algebra and

geometry in school, even though students who study algebra in middle school and plan to take

advanced math and science courses in high school are more likely to go to college. The College

Board's EQUITY 2000 project, for example, helps districts with a high proportion of minority and

disadvantaged students to phase out lower-level mathematics in favor of a college preparatory

curriculum. It does so through heightening teachers’ expectations for their students, encouraging

students to take more rigorous courses, and engaging families in the learning process.

Migrant students. The more than 600,000 migrant students in the United States also face

problems related to social promotion and retention. Because these students are mobile,

maintaining educational continuity must be at the forefront of intervention strategies. The

Migrant Education Program (MEP) statute offers considerable flexibility to states to design and

implement services that help migrant children meet challenging standards. For example, education

services available before and after school help migrant youth who must work during the school

year. Some states and districts have adopted a home-based service delivery model, especially
46

Meeting the Needs of Migrant Students

Migrant children suffer from frequent disruptions in their education. In addition, many migrant

children come from language-minority families and face linguistic and cultural challenges. There are

numerous examples of programs designed to meet the special needs of migrant students:

< Project SMART in Texas takes the classroom to pre-kindergarten to 12th grade migrant

students through live, interactive, distance learning for eight weeks during the summer. 

More than 30,000 migrant students are involved in the program, which establishes computer

links at centers, camps, and homes throughout the state, and uses cable television to reach

migrant students and their families.

< The California Mini-Corps program provides direct instructional services to more than

76,000 migrant students through the use of college tutors from similar backgrounds.

< PASS, the “portable assisted study sequence,” gives students the opportunity to earn credits

toward graduation even if they move from school to school. Students earn credits at other

schools (or by working on their own) that are transferable and count toward graduation at

their home-base school.

when trying to reach preschool migrant children and to enhance parenting skills within a family

unit. Districts and schools can provide services at hours and locations that may entice older

migrant children who no longer attend school to return. A number of states provide intensive

education services to migrant students through short residential programs in the summer or during

vacation periods. Distance learning, correspondence courses, and coordinated instruction across

school sites are strategies that also address the needs of highly mobile students.

Students with Disabilities. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

states must ensure that a free appropriate public education is made available to all children with

disabilities, beginning at age three and extending through high school graduation or a student’s

22nd birthday, depending on state law or practice. The IDEA requires that each disabled child

must receive a program of instruction and services in conformity with an Individualized Education

Program (IEP) developed by a team composed of the child’s parents, school personnel, and other

required participants. 

All disabled children must be educated in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their

individual needs. This means that children with disabilities must be educated, to the maximum

extent appropriate, in regular classes with their age appropriate, nondisabled peers, with

appropriate supplementary aids and services, in the school they would attend if not disabled. In

order to ensure that each child’s IEP appropriately addresses the child’s unique special

educational needs, the IEP team must regularly review each student’s progress toward attaining
47

Addressing the Needs of Students with Disabilities: Chicago

While all students with disabilities have individual learning needs, one should not

automatically assume that a student receiving special education services will be unable to

succeed at high academic levels. Parents and school personnel should have high

expectations for all children, including children with disabilities. The Chicago Public

Schools (CPS) have instituted a program designed to appropriately address the needs of

disabled students, while at the same time, ending social promotion. 

 

Children with disabilities are expected to meet the CPS standards for promotion, unless a

child's Individual Education Program (IEP) Team determines otherwise. In such cases, a

child's IEP Team develops an individual promotion standard for that child. If the child does

not meet an applicable standard, the child will be required, like nondisabled peers, to attend

an appropriate summer school. 

 

Although a school district eliminates social promotion, it must continue to meet the

requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

the annual goals and determine whether any additional accommodations or modifications are

needed. This is to ensure that the student’s disability-related needs are addressed and that the

student continues to be involved in and progresses in the general curriculum. Under Federal civil

rights laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, it would be impermissible for

school officials to make decisions about social promotion and grade retention solely on the basis

of the category of the student’s disability.
48

Along with ending the practice of social

promotion we must provide extra help for

children after school and in the summer so that

we don’t just identify children as failures, but

instead say, “We’re going to give you more help

until you succeed.”

—President Clinton, July 1998

21st Century Community Learning Centers

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program enables schools to provide expanded learning

opportunities for children after school, on weekends, and during the summer in a safe, drug-free, and

supervised environment. The program is greatly expanding in 1999, as a result of receiving $200

million following a recent report by the Departments of Education and Justice on the effectiveness of

after-school programs and a Charles Stewart Mott Foundation survey that showed the public’s strong

desire to make high-quality after-school programs available to all children.

The centers offer homework assistance, intensive tutoring in basic skills, counseling to prevent drug use

and violence, and enrichment in core academic subjects as well as opportunities to participate in

recreational activities, the arts, technology education programs, and services for children and youth

with disabilities. The centers are supported through school-community partnerships that include public

and nonprofit agencies and organizations, local businesses, and educational entities. 

The Bayfield Public School System in Wisconsin, for example, has identified cultural isolation, alcohol

and drug use, and single-parent families as the main risk factors that affect the achievement of its

students. The district’s 21st Century Community Learning Center contains elements of integrated

education, health, social service, recreational, and cultural programs; literacy education; and parenting

skills education.

Extending Learning Time

By intervening early in a child’s school career and targeting those students who need intensive and

tailored assistance, extended learning

programs can help prepare students

academically and developmentally to

move to the next grade. Like other

strategies in this guide, federal resources

such as Title I of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act can be used to

support efforts to extend learning time. 

Currently, Title I helps to fund over

13,000 extended-time instructional

programs across the nation.

Extending learning time for students includes strategies such as establishing quality after-school

and summer school programs, and moving toward a year-round school schedule.
49

Summer Bridge Program: 

Chicago Public Schools

In August 1996, Chicago adopted a rigorous student

promotion policy that requires underachieving students

in grades 3, 6, 8, and 9 to complete a summer school

program before being promoted to the next grade. 

Students who do not meet designated minimum scores

on the district’s standardized tests or who fail reading or

math must successfully complete a six or seven week

summer remediation program. All ninth graders who

miss more than 20 days of school or fail to earn the

required core credits also are required to attend the

summer-school programs. Students who fail the

summer programs are held back. Eighth graders over

the age of 15 who fail to reach grade level after the

summer program are assigned to an alternative school

for overage students. After one semester, they can

retake the test to see whether they are eligible to reenroll

in their high school. In 1998, about 60,000 students

attended Summer Bridge classes.

Establish after-school programs

Children’s participation in high-quality learning environments that build on the regular school day,

such as after-school extended learning programs, can improve their academic and social

development. Research has shown that students who participate in after-school programs exhibit

higher achievement in reading, math, and other subjects compared with their own past

performance and with the performance of comparable students who did not participate in such a

program.38

Programs that include tutoring and activities related to reading and writing, in particular, can

increase reading achievement for young children. After-school programs give students an

opportunity to practice the skills acquired during the school hours through interaction with

attentive and well-trained adults. 

< Project Read in New York City, for example, provides intensive reading instruction to

over 100,000 students in grades 1-3 after school as well as during the school day. 

According to a recent study by the district, third graders who participated in the afterschool program experienced significant gains in achievement.

< New Haven has begun

implementing voluntary afterschool and Saturday school

literacy programs at six

elementary schools for second,

third, and fourth graders. During

the Saturday academies, students

participate in 45 minute reading,

writing, and math classes based

on the state assessment. The

district’s afterschool reading

centers are based on the Comer

model, developed by Dr. James

Comer at Yale University, and

will include participation by

certified reading teachers,

paraprofessionals and parents.

< Chicago’s Lighthouse program

provides students with an hour of

academic assistance and one hour

of recreation after school. In

1998 the program served 175,000
50

students in Chicago, including all students who failed to meet the district’s promotion

standards after participating in Summer Bridge. 

Participation in a strong after-school program provides numerous additional benefits to children at

risk of school failure. As children gain greater confidence in their academic abilities and more

interest in school through participation in after-school programs, their school attendance

improves. Furthermore, at those after-school programs offering homework assistance, children

are more likely to complete their homework and turn in better work. Overall, children in afterschool programs display better work habits than their peers.

Provide summer school for students not meeting standards

For students who do not meet standards during the school year, a high-quality summer school

program is an essential opportunity. When standards for promotion begin to be enforced, the

results can be sobering. Low test scores may galvanize interest in schools, but they also create

numerous problems for the public schools and teachers. Yet, a recent survey conducted by the

Department of Education indicated that only about one third of districts in the nation have

mandatory summer school for students facing retention.39 

Most districts working to end social promotion have found that summer school is an absolutely

necessary component of efforts to help students who do not make the grade. For example:

< The Summer Literacy Program in Denver, which began in 1997, is a four-week summer

program for students in grades 3, 5, and 8. Third-graders who score one or more years

below grade level in reading on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills must attend the program, as

do fifth and eighth graders who score two or more years below grade level. Third-grade

classes during the summer program do not exceed 20 students, and every room has both a

teacher and paraprofessional. Fifth and eighth grade classes do not exceed 15 students. 

Sessions run for four hours every day for third graders and three hours for all other

students. Instruction follows the district’s literacy plan, which consists of direct

instruction in reading skills as well as guided reading and writing, cooperative reading, and

independent reading. In 1998, about 2,200 students completed the program.

< The Long Beach (California) Unified School District has instituted programs to reduce

the retention rate at grades 3 and 9. Third-graders who score two years below grade

level, as determined by a combination of assessments, must attend a five-week summer

program. The district retests students at the end of the program to determine their

placement for the following year. Students who still score two or more years below grade

level must repeat the third grade. Students who score one to two years below grade level

are promoted to the fourth grade, where they receive extra tutoring. In 1997, the first

year of the program, 55 percent of participating students were promoted to fourth grade

after raising their reading achievement to grade level.
51

Summer STARS: D.C. Public Schools

In 1998, Washington, D.C., Superintendent Arlene Ackerman instituted Summer STARS (Students

and Teachers Achieving Results and Success), a massive summer school program for students who

perform poorly on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9). Although the six-week summer

program is open to all D.C. students, students in grades 1-5 who score below the basic level on the

SAT-9 are required to attend the summer program, which is designed to improve their basic reading

and math skills. Students who score at the basic level on the SAT-9 are encouraged to attend the

summer program. At the end of the program, teachers evaluate students’ progress and make

recommendations regarding promotion. Eighth-grade students who score below the basic level on

the SAT-9 also must attend the summer school program every year until they reach the basic level or

pass the district’s high school proficiency test. In its first year, over 24,000 students attended

summer school.

The summer school program runs every day of the week from 8:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. To

successfully complete the program, students may not miss more than three sessions. The curriculum

consists of two hours of reading and two hours of math instruction in classrooms with just 15

students. The program also provides enrichment activities for students, including trips to the

Smithsonian museums and parks. 

Move toward year-round schooling

In a 1994 report, the National Education Commission on Time and Learning recommended that

schools stay open longer during the day and for more days during the year. Year-round schools

substitute a few short breaks throughout the year for the traditional long summer break. This

schedule gives children more learning time and helps prevent some of the loss of ground that

takes place in the summer months. Teachers may spend less time reviewing previously taught

material and students can gain up to six weeks of schooling beyond the traditional school year. 

Many districts also see year-round schooling as a way to control overcrowding that may arise

from efforts to reduce class sizes.

Nationwide, almost 2,000 public and private schools enroll more than 1.4 million students in yearround schools. Most students still attend school for about 180 days per year, but the year is

stretched over a 12-month period with shorter breaks.40
52

Year-Round Schooling:

Socorro Independent School District, El Paso, Texas

The Socorro Independent School District in El Paso considered year-round education in part because

the traditional school year could not accommodate the growing school-age population in the district. 

A task force made up of students, parents, teachers, administrators, and community leaders studied

the options--split sessions, portable classrooms, higher student-teacher ratios, and year-round

schooling--and decided that year-round education would offer better academic opportunities for

students. Shorter vacations reduce the loss of learning and the district would offer educational

programs to underachieving students between sessions of schooling. 

Between 1997 and 1998 the proportion of Socorro students passing the reading, writing, and

mathematics portion of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills has improved at every grade level. 

Over 80 percent of students in grades 4, 8, and 10 met Texas’s standards for reading and at least 70

percent of students across the grade levels met the state standard for mathematics.

—from Prisoners of Time: Schools and Programs Making Time Work
53

Helping Students Who Still Do Not Meet Standards

For students who continue to be unsuccessful in meeting standards, repeating a grade still is not

an effective strategy. Students in this situation need other alternatives that help them develop

the skills they need to achieve. The commitment to ending social promotion must extend to

providing all students with every chance to meet high expectations. No student should be allowed

to fall through the cracks. Most of the strategies in this section are designed to help students in

the critical middle and high school grades.

Develop effective transition programs for students unprepared for promotion

In making the transition from childhood to young adulthood, students face tough challenges and

peer pressure that can seriously affect their academic lives. At this stage of their academic

careers, particularly as states and districts are increasing the stakes for students to pass exit exams

before they can receive high school diplomas, teenagers need extra help. Two of the many

examples of programs to ease the transition of students into high school and beyond are described

here. Some programs provide alternative settings for students while others provide more

individualized attention within the traditional middle or high school.

< Agua Fria High School, near Phoenix, has a transition school program that provides

academic and counseling support to students whose poor basic skills or attendance are

impairing their performance in their regular classes. The program’s goal is to return

students to their regular classrooms once they have caught up with the rest of the class. 

Most students attend the program for one semester before returning to their class. The

program works with no more than eight students each class period, and about 125

students attend each year. A certified teacher and classroom aide provide computerassisted and small-group instruction, while a home-school liaison offers counseling. 

Students attend the transition school instead of a regular class to work on the skills or

material with which they need particular help. According to the program coordinator,

“Students are not assigned here to make up a particular class. We focus more on

strengthening a particular skill that affects their performance in all classes.” Through

partnerships with a local community college, Agua Fria also allows students aged 17-20

with at least 12 credits toward graduation to earn either their high school diploma or a

GED or both while attending the college.

< In Connecticut, East Hartford High School’s ninth-grade transition program provides

academic tutoring while allowing the student to work closely with a full-time staff

member. The program, instituted to cut the ninth-grade retention rate, assigns a tutor to

each ninth-grade team of teachers. Tutors participate in all team meetings and assist in

classes. Tutors work with at-risk students during the students’ study hall periods as well

as during a mandatory afterschool program, and maintain weekly contact with parents. 

Social work interns lead weekly small-group sessions on study skills, time management,
54

Charter Schools

Of the more than 500 federally funded charter

schools operating in the nation, many serve

students who are at risk of dropping out, are low

achievers, or are in adjudication. Thirty percent

of federally funded charter schools serve a highpoverty student population, 20 percent are

alternative schools, and many focus on the needs

of students with limited English language skills. 

Reasons Students Drop 

of High School

< Dislike of school, often because school is

boring and irrelevant to student needs;

< Low academic achievement and poor

grades;

< Retention (particularly being held back

more than once)

< Poverty, including the need or desire to

work full time;

< A sense that teachers and administrators do

not care about students; and

< Inability to feel comfortable in a large,

depersonalized school setting.

and goal setting. A Summer Transition Program for incoming freshmen provides three

weeks of academic enrichment in each of the core academic areas. About 70 students

who fail two or more classes in the eighth grade attend the summer program.

< The Long Beach Unified School

District assigns eighth-graders who

fail two or more classes to an

alternative program titled the Long

Beach Preparatory Academy. The

Prep Academy is a year-long

program that has smaller classes

than regular ninth-grade classes. A

counselor and a social worker work

closely with students and their

families. In the program’s first year

in operation, close to 90 percent of

over 280 participating students earned the right to be promoted to the ninth grade. 

Sometimes, despite the best efforts of schools and teachers, students still are not ready to move

on to the next grade. Alternative public schools or an alternative program within a school can

offer a second chance for children who are failing. There are many different types, but most share

the following characteristics: fewer

students per teacher, individualized

attention, a mentoring environment, clear

academic and behavioral standards, a

strong education program, strong parental

participation, and counseling services. 

Prevent dropouts and help students

realize postsecondary opportunities

Strategies that create smaller learning

environments and tailor instruction more

closely to individual needs in a supportive

environment are becoming a trend, not just

for intervention and transition programs,

but also for the design of middle and high

schools more generally. Many high

schools where dropping out has become a

serious problem have redesigned the

traditional, large, impersonal high school

into smaller learning academies or schools

within schools. Patterson High School in
55

Baltimore, for example, has become a nationally recognized example of how personalizing

relationships, along with concentrating on curriculum, can create a good learning environment.41

The school adopted the Talent Development Model, reorganizing the school into four career

academies and a special school just for ninth-graders. Instead of suspending or transferring

students with discipline or attendance problems, Patterson has an after hours “Twilight School” to

help get the students on track. After the first two years of implementation, the school’s

attendance rate, school climate, and the percentage of students meeting state standards

increased.42

As mentioned earlier in this guide, 13 states now have exit exams aligned with state standards that

high school students must pass in order to graduate. As such policies are adopted, the risk that

students will drop out of school may increase if states and districts do not also implement

strategies for helping students pass proficiency tests. In New York City for example, the “Post-5"

program is designed to address the needs of students unable to meet graduation requirements. 

Students receive accelerated and alternative instruction but are held to the same high standards for

graduation. 

Motivating students to stay in school often involves expanding their horizons to think through and

carry out career and postsecondary education goals. Several U.S. Department of Education

programs respond to this new emphasis and help young people and adults develop the knowledge

and skills they need for careers that often demand ever-higher levels of education and training.

The School-to-Work Opportunities Act, administered jointly by the Department of Education and

the Department of Labor, provides seed money to every state and to interested communities to

develop and launch a comprehensive school-to-work system. These systems combine

school-based and work-based learning with activities designed to prepare students for a first job.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that schools provide transition services to

help students with disabilities move more successfully from school to post-school activities,

including post-secondary education, vocational training, and employment. The National

Transition Alliance (NTA), funded under IDEA, provides technical assistance to state school-towork systems to assist them in addressing the needs of students with disabilities in their programs. 

The NTA also develops and disseminates information about effective transition practices that

support youth with disabilities in learning the skills needed to live successfully in the community

and thrive in the workplace. 

The Higher Education Amendments of 1998 include a new national effort to encourage more

young people to have high expectations, stay in school and study hard, and go to college. In a

recent survey, almost 70 percent of parents indicated that they have little information, or want

more information, about which courses their child should take to prepare for college, and 89

percent of parents want more information about how to pay for college, including the use of tax

credits.43
56

Earlier this year President Clinton proposed the High Hopes for College initiative to create a

national effort so that every college works in partnership with at least one middle school in a

low-income community to help raise expectations and ensure that students are well prepared for

college. Under the new GEAR UP program (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for

Undergraduate Programs) the Department is spending $120 million to fund competitive grants

that support early college awareness activities at both the state and local levels. The initiative will

award multi year grants to locally designed partnerships between colleges and high-poverty

middle and high schools, plus at least two other partners--such as community organizations,

businesses, religious groups, state education agencies, parent groups, or nonprofits--to increase

college attendance rates among low-income youth by: 

< Informing students and parents about college options and financial aid,

< Promoting rigorous academic coursework based on college entrance requirements, and

< Providing comprehensive services--mentoring, tutoring, counseling, and other activities

such as after-school programs, summer academic and enrichment programs, and college

visits--to students beginning in grades 6 and 7 and continuing through high school

graduation.

Each of these programs and strategies can contribute to ending social promotion by helping

students feel that adults care about their future and helping the students understand how their

academic careers are related to their future potential. Creating smaller learning communities,

personalizing instruction, and introducing students to the world of college and work can give

students a stake in their educational success that they might not otherwise develop.
57

School Report Cards: What Do Parents

Really Want to Know?

A recent special study on school report cards by

Education Week reveals what parents, taxpayers,

and educators feel they need to know about schools

in order to make schools more accountable for

results. Parents rated the following as the top ten

indicators that could be reported to hold schools

accountable:

school safety

teacher qualifications

class sizes

graduation rates

dropout rates

statewide test scores

parent survey data

SAT scores

percent of students promoted to the next grade

attendance rates

-Quality Counts, 1999

Holding Schools Accountable for Performance and Helping Them Improve

Ending social promotion requires attention to the systemic issues that reduce the capacity of our

schools to educate our children, along with the political will to make changes and an

understanding of the long-term benefits of those changes. 

To achieve the goal of ending social promotion, states and districts will have to allocate the

resources to help all students meet high standards. School administrators and teachers will then

face the challenge of dealing with students who cannot make the grade. Ending social promotion

involves taking risks and holding firm to the commitment to help all students reach their full

potential. It requires holding stakeholders accountable for helping students reach high standards.

This section discusses the lessons to be learned from the experiences of districts that have made

the effort to hold schools accountable for students’ performance. 

Require public reporting of school performance

Public reporting of school performance is playing an important role in holding schools more

accountable and is an important tool for

communicating to parents and the public

about the quality of schools. To date, 36

states issue school-level report cards. An

analysis of early report cards indicates that

no two states report the exact same

information, and the reports tended to be

heavy on “input measures” that described

the characteristics of schools rather than

focusing on quality or performance.44 

To be useful, report cards need to display

information about a variety of indicators,

from student demographics and performance

on assessments to use of resources and

parental involvement. In some states, such

as New York, report cards permit

comparisons of student achievement results

across similar schools in the state based on

the age of students, the resource capacity of

the district or school, and the economic

needs of the students. Recent amendments

to the Individuals with Disabilities Act also

require that, under certain conditions, the

performance of students with disabilities be

included in these reports.
58

In many states these report cards are distributed each year to parents and are publicized in local

media when released. State, district, and school leaders generally agree that publishing school

level indicators of achievement has been an important means of holding schools accountable for

student performance.

Intervene in low-performing schools

Accountability for performance means that there must be consequences for schools that fail to

help students achieve. Earlier this year the President released Turning Around Low-Performing

Schools: A Guide for State and Local Leaders. The guide makes the point that holding schools

accountable is not enough. Chronically low performing schools rarely have the capacity, on their

own, to make the kinds of changes necessary to improve students’ achievement. In these cases,

states and districts must help create the capacity, vision, and commitment needed to improve. 

The guide examined numerous strategies pursued by districts across the country to intervene in

chronically low-performing schools, including efforts in:

< New York City, where the city’s lowest-performing schools, as identified by the New

York State Education Department as Schools Under Registration Review (SURR), are

assigned to the “Chancellor’s District.” The Chancellor’s District Intervention Plan

includes an in-depth assessment of existing school conditions using the Performance

Assessment in Schools System (PASS) review, a comprehensive plan to address identified

needs, and an intensive support system that ensures quality implementation. This focused

intervention has resulted in the removal from the SURR list of all but four of the twelve

schools in the Chancellor’s Districts within the span of only two years.

< In Chicago, where very low performing schools are placed on probation. As part of the

process, schools must develop a corrective action plan. Schools must select an external

partner to assist them in the process. The district provides a school operations manager to

deal with fiscal and administrative matters so that the principal can focus on improving

instruction. The district also assigns a probation monitor (a former or current successful

principal) to monitor a school’s progress toward improving student achievement.

Because social promotion and retention disproportionately affect disadvantaged students in needy

schools, it is essential that efforts to hold these schools and students accountable for meeting

standards are accompanied by effective intervention strategies. To be effective, accountability

measures must engage teachers and the unions that represent them, along with parents and the

wider community in bringing about improvement.

Reward school improvement

Holding schools accountable for performance means not only intervening in and assisting schools

where students are not meeting standards but also providing incentives for schools to continually

improve performance and rewarding schools that meet expectations. 
59

< In Maryland, schools that attain significant improvement over a one-year period receive a

certificate of recognition. Schools that improve over two to three years receive monetary

awards (ranging from $19,000 to $79,000 per school). School improvement teams decide

how funds are spent for the benefit of the entire school.

< In North Carolina, schools achieving exemplary growth/gain (approximately 10 percent

above statewide average) or expected growth/gain are eligible for incentive awards, which

can be distributed as direct bonuses to teachers or can be used by the school. For

exemplary gains, schools receive up to $1,500 for each certified staff member and $500

for each teacher assistant. For expected gains, schools receive up to $750 per certified

staff member and $375 for each teacher assistant. To be eligible for incentives, schools

must not have excessive exemptions and must test at least 98 percent of eligible K-8

students and 95 percent of high school students.

Ending social promotion requires real accountability for results--and this accountability must

begin at the school level. These strategies require strong leadership, a sense of collective

responsibility from within and outside the school, and open and honest communication among

stakeholders.
60

Conclusion

Social promotion is an unacceptable response to the problem of low-achieving students in our

nation’s schools. All of us must take responsibility for ending social promotion and be prepared

to ensure that every student achieves to his or her full potential and to the highest standards.

Ending social promotion is not a stand-alone policy that can be adopted and implemented. But it

is an important step in sending a message to students about how critical it is for them to meet high

standards. 

Few, if any, of the recommendations in this guide can, by themselves, meet the challenge of

ending social promotion. Ending social promotion requires a comprehensive effort that addresses

multiple problems and a variety of student needs. It means setting high standards and measures of

accountability for schools and students and taking responsibility for student performance. It also

means building the capacity of schools and students to meet those expectations, and intervening to

help students who fall behind. 

Ending social promotion requires states, districts, and schools to address issues associated with

the quality of teachers, the quality of the curriculum and its alignment with standards and

assessments, and family support of educational activities. A comprehensive approach to ending

social promotion requires early identification and intervention for students with special needs, and

effective programs for extending the time and increasing the attention that some students need to

meet expectations. It also means encouraging the involvement of more parents in the education

of their children at home, in the school, and with the community.

Truly embracing the idea that all children can learn--and making sure that all children do--requires

that we all take responsibility for ending social promotion and commit our energy, resources, and

best ideas to this effort.
61

New Programs for 1999

Class Size Reduction. The 1999 budget provides $1.2 billion to hire approximately 30,000

new teachers. It is the first installment in the Administration’s commitment to help school

districts hire and train 100,000 new teachers. The initiative aims to help reduce class size in

grades 1-3 to a nationwide average of 18. States are receiving funds to boost teacher quality

through recruitment, hiring and training. For more information telephone Cathy Schagh at

(202) 260-3858 or Connie Deshpande at (202) 401-0113.

The Reading Excellence Act. To help all children learn to read well and independently by

the end of third grade, this initiative focuses on strategies for creating extended learning

opportunities, providing high-quality classroom instruction, strengthening parental

involvement and investment in early childhood education, promoting greater public awareness

about literacy, and supporting research and evaluation. The 1999 budget provides $260

million to support this initiative. Already, thousands of federal work-study and community

volunteer tutors are helping children develop their reading skills. For further information, see

the Web site at <http://www.ed.gov/inits/americareads>or telephone Joseph Conaty at (202)

401-0113.

GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs).

This new competitive-grant program provides $120 million in 1999 to support early

intervention and college awareness activities at both the local and the state levels to help lowincome middle-school children prepare for college. GEAR UP funding will be split between

college-school-community partnership grants and state grants. To learn more about the

program, telephone 1-800-USA-LEARN or visit the GEAR UP Web site at

<http://www.ed.gov/gearup>.

U.S. Department of Education’s

Inventory of Resources for Ending Social Promotion

This section provides an inventory of federal program resources that states, districts, and schools

can use to help end social promotion and improve academic achievement for all students.

High Standards of Learning for All Students

The Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program. This new program helps

schools identify and adopt the high-quality, well-defined, and research-based comprehensive

schoolwide reform models that show the most promise of preparing children to meet challenging

state content and performance standards. In 1998, $145 million was made available to be

distributed as formula grants to state education agencies that will use the funds to make

competitive grants to local education agencies. In FY 1999, $120 million will be administered for

this program under Title I and $25 million under the Fund for the Improvement of Education. For
62

further information, telephone Bill Kincaid at (202) 205-4292 or see the Web site at

<http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/compreform/>.

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Title I, the largest federal education

program for prekindergarten through grade 12, has one overriding goal: to improve teaching and

learning for low-achieving children so that they can meet challenging academic standards. Funds

are provided to districts and schools in accordance with their numbers of poor children. Schools

with poverty rates of 50 percent or higher may combine their Title I funds with state and local

resources and most other federal education funds to upgrade their entire education program rather

than targeting services only to identified children. Schools with poverty rates below 50 percent,

or those that choose not to adopt a schoolwide program, may give services to those children

identified as failing or most at risk of failing. For further information, telephone Mary Jean

LeTendre at (202) 260-0826 or see the Web site at <http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/CEP/>.

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Goals 2000 is based on the premise that higher

expectations produce better performance, that academic standards should be raised, and that

schools and teachers should be specific about what they expect children to learn. Goals 2000

challenges states and communities to develop and implement academic content standards, student

performance standards and assessments, and plans for improving teacher training. Districts may

apply for one of three types of grants: local reform, professional development, or preservice

training. Goals 2000 also provides the authority to waive statutory and regulatory requirements of

the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act and of the following

programs under the ESEA: Title I; Title II, Eisenhower Professional Development; Title IV, Safe

and Drug-Free Schools; Title VI, Innovative Education Strategies; and Title VII, Part C,

Emergency Immigrant Education. For further information, telephone Patricia Gore at (202) 401-

0039 or see the Web site at <http://www.ed.gov/G2K>.

Extending Learning Time

21st Century Community Learning Centers. This program is authorized under Title X, Part I, of

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The funds must be used to expand a school’s capacity

to address the educational needs of its community. The program’s focus is on expanding learning

opportunities for children in a safe, drug-free, and supervised environment and brings much-needed

attention to supplementary learning activities that address adolescence and the problems of drug use,

gang involvement, and violence. The program has established a priority for projects designed to assist

students in meeting or exceeding state or local standards in core academic subjects. The program will

award $160 million in new grants in 1999 to serve approximately 1,700 schools and 250,000 students.

For further information, telephone Bob Stonehill at (202) 219-2088 or see the Web site at

<http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/21stCCLC>.

Safe Environment for Learning

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program. This program provides funds to

help states, schools, and communities design, implement, and evaluate alcohol and drug education

and prevention programs. State education agencies (SEAs) are required to distribute 91 percent
63

of their program funds to local education agencies for prevention of drug use and violence. 

Activities authorized under the statute include: the development of instructional materials;

counseling services; after-school programs; professional development programs for school

personnel, students, law enforcement officials, judicial officials, or community leaders; conflict

resolution, peer mediation, and mentoring programs; character education programs and

community service projects; the establishment of safe zones of passage for students to and from

school; and the acquisition and installation of metal detectors and the hiring of security personnel. 

The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act also requires states to target a portion of

resources to districts where they are most needed. The law increases accountability by requiring

states to measure the success of their programs against clearly defined goals and objectives. For

further information, telephone Bill Modzeleski at (202) 260-3954 or see the Web site at

<http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS>.

Technology

Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. The Technology Literacy Challenge Fund provides

funds to states, on a formula basis, to help local districts use technology to strengthen their

educational programs. The goals of the Challenge Fund are to provide all teachers with the

training and support they need to help students learn by using technology, provide all schools with

modern computers, connect all classrooms to the information superhighway, and make effective

software and on-line learning resources integral parts of the curriculum in schools. Ninety-five

percent of the funds that a state receives must be awarded to school systems on a competitive

basis. For further information, telephone Charles Lovett at (202) 401-0039 or visit the Web site

at <http://www.ed.gov/Technology/inititiv.html>.

Alternative Public Schools

The Public Charter Schools Program. The Charter Schools Program provides financial

assistance for designing and implementing charter schools created by teachers, parents, and other

community members. Grants are available on a competitive basis to state education agencies

(SEAs) in states that allow charter schools; the SEAs make subgrants to authorized public

chartering agencies in partnership with developers of charter schools. If an eligible SEA chooses

not to participate or if its application for funding is not approved, the Department can make

grants directly to eligible local partnerships. Charter schools are free from most education laws

and regulations except civil rights and safety laws, but are accountable for results. In return for

increased accountability, they gain autonomy in such areas as personnel, curriculum, budgets,

scheduling, and other matters through a legal contract with a school board or other public

chartering agency authorized by state law. Standards for performance are established in the

contract. For further information, telephone John Fiegel at (202) 260-2671 or visit the Web site

at <http://www.uscharterschools.org>.

Promoting Family Involvement

The Partnership for Family Involvement in Education. The mission of the Partnership for

Family Involvement in Education is to promote children’s learning through the development and
64

use of family-school-community-business partnerships that strengthen schools and improve

student achievement. A growing grass-roots movement of over 4,000 schools, employers, and

community and religious groups has emerged to support local and national efforts, including

adopting family-friendly business practices; providing before- and after-school activities for

children; giving parents the resources, training, and information they need to help children learn;

and promoting family and community involvement in children’s learning. For further information,

visit the Web site at <http://www.ed.gov/PFIE/> or call 1-800-USA-LEARN.

Preparing Students for Work

School-to-Work Program. A growing understanding of the relationship between our

educational performance and our competitiveness in the global economy has led to a new

emphasis on the connections between school and work, and a new appreciation of the importance

of vocational education and opportunities for lifelong learning. The 1994 School-to-Work

Opportunities Act, administered jointly by the Department of Education and the Department of

Labor, provides seed money to every state and to interested communities to develop and launch a

comprehensive school-to-work system. These systems combine school-based and work-based

learning with activities designed to prepare students for a first job. For more information, visit the

Web site at <http://www.stw.ed.gov>.

Vocational Education. Perkins Act Vocational Education State grants provide funds to help pay

for vocational training programs at both the secondary and postsecondary levels. Funds may be

used in accordance with state-developed plans to support activities ranging from pre-vocational

courses for secondary school students to retraining adults in response to changing technological

and labor market conditions. Another area of significant federal support to assist states in

preparing individuals for employment is Vocational Rehabilitation. The Department provides

Vocational Rehabilitation state grants that assist one million adults with disabilities, most of them

severe, in achieving successful employment outcomes and independent living. As a result of this

program, about 200,000 individuals with disabilities are placed each year in jobs in the

competitive labor market or become self-employed. About 80 percent of those individuals report

that their own income, rather than public assistance or family income, is their primary source of

support. For more information, visit the Web site at <http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE>.

Technical Assistance Providers

Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers. These 15 centers assist states, local education

agencies (LEAs), American Indian tribes, schools, and other recipients of funds under the

Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). Priority for services is given to high-poverty schools

and districts, Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, and IASA recipients implementing schoolwide

programs. The centers help recipients of IASA funds implement school reform programs; adopt,

adapt, and implement proven practices for improving teaching and learning; coordinate school

reform programs with other federal, state, and local education plans and activities; and administer

IASA programs. They provide assistance by identifying and disseminating successful practices

and appropriate research-based programs to schools, districts, SEAs, and other educational

entities; creating mentoring relationships between low-performing and high-achieving schools; and
65

providing high-quality professional development for state, school district, and school personnel to

increase their capacities for supporting programs authorized by IASA. For further information on

the centers in general, telephone Edith Harvey at (202) 260-1393 or see the Web site

at<http://www.ed.gov/oese/>. Contact information for individual centers as follows:

Region I

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

Rhode Island, Vermont

New England Comprehensive Assistance Center

Wendy Allen, Director

Education Development Center, Inc.

55 Chapel St.

Newton, MA 02158-1069

Phone: (617) 969-7110, ext. 2201

Fax: (617) 965-6325

E-mail: wallen@edc.org

Web site: http://www.edc.org/NECAC/

Region II

New York State

New York Technical Assistance Center (NYTAC)

LaMar P. Miller, Executive Director

New York University

82 Washington Square East, Suite 72

New York, NY 10003

Phone: (800) 469-8224

Fax: (212) 995-4199

E-mail: millrla@is2.nyu.edu

Web site: http://www.nyu.edu/education/metrocenter

Region III

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C.

Region III Comprehensive Center

Charlene Rivera, Director

Institute for Equity & Excellence in Education

George Washington University

1730 N. Lynn St., Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22209

Phone: (703) 528-3588

Fax: (703) 528-5973

E-mail: crivera@ceee.gwu.edu/

Web site: http://www.gwu.edu/nieee

Region IV

Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,

Virginia, West Virginia

Region IV Comprehensive Technical Assistance

Center

Terry Eidell, Executive Director

Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Inc.

Math and Science Consortium

P.O. Box 1348

Charleston, WV 25325-13248

Phone: (304) 347-0400 or (800) 624-9120

Fax: (304) 347-0487

E-mail: aelinfo@ael.org

Web site: http://www.ael.org

Region V

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi

Region 5 SE Comprehensive Assistance Center

Hai T. Tran, Director

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory

3330 N. Causeway Blvd., Ste. 430

Metairie, LA 70002-3573

Phone: (504) 838-6861 or (800) 644-8671

Fax: (504) 831-5242

E-mail: htran@sedl.org

Web site: http://www.sedl.org/secac/

Region VI

Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Wisconsin

Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center

Consortium - Region VI

Walter Secada, Director

University of Wisconsin

1025 W. Johnson St.

Madison, WI 53706

Phone: (608) 263-4220

Fax: (608) 263-3733

E-mail: wgsecada@facstaff.wisc.edu

Web site: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ccvi/
66

Region VII

Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska,

Oklahoma

Region VII Comprehensive Center

John Steffens, Executive Director

Belinda Biscoe, Director

University of Oklahoma

555 E. Constitution St., Suite 111

Norman, OK 73072-7820

Phone: (405) 325-1729 or (800) 228-1766

Fax: (405) 325-1824

E-mail: regionvii@ou.edu

Web site: http://www.occe.ou.edu/comp/comp.html

Region VIII

Texas

Star Center

Maria Robledo Montecel, Executive Director

Albert Cortez, Site Director

Intercultural Development Research Association

Institute for Policy & Leadership

5835 Callaghan Rd., Suite 350

San Antonio, TX 78228-1190

Phone: (210) 684-8180 or (888) 394-7827

Fax: (210) 684-5389

E-mail: idra@idra.org

Web site: http://www.idra.org

Region IX

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah

Southwest Comprehensive Regional Assistance

Center

Paul E. Martinez, Director

New Mexico Highlands University

500 Laser Rd., NE, Suite B

Rio Rancho, NM 87124

Phone: (505) 891-6111 or (800) 247-4269

Fax: (505) 891-5744

E-mail: info@cesdp.nmhu.edu

Web site: http://www.cesdp.nmhu.edu

Region X

Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming

Northwest Regional Assistance Center

Carlos Sundermann, Director

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

101 Southwest Main St., Suite 500

Portland, OR 97204

Phone: (503) 275-9480

Fax: (503) 275-9625

E-mail: mwrac@nwrel.org

Web site: http://www.nwrac.org

Region XI

Northern California

Comprehensive Assistance Center

WestEd

Beverly Farr, Director

730 Harrison St.

San Francisco, CA 94107-1242

Phone: (415) 565-3009 or (800) 64-LEARN

Fax: (415) 565-3012

E-mail: bfarr@wested.org

Web site: http://www.wested.org/cc

Region XII

Southern California

Southern California Comprehensive Assistance

Center

Henry Mothner, Director

Los Angeles County Office of Education

9300 Imperial Highway

Downey, CA 90242-2890

Phone: (562) 922-6364

Fax: (562) 922-6699

E-mail: mothner_henry@lacoe.edu

Web site: http://sccas.lacoe.edu

Region XIII

Alaska

Alaska Comprehensive Regional Assistance Center

Bill Buell, Director

South East Regional Resource Center

210 Ferry Way, Suite 200

Juneau, AK 99801

Phone: (907) 586-6806

Fax: (907) 463-3811

E-mail: joannh@akrac.k12.ak.us

Web site: http://www.akrac.k12.ak.us

Region XIV

Florida, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands

Comprehensive Assistance Center

Trudy Hensley, Director

Educational Testing Service

1979 Lake Side Parkway, Suite 400

Tucker, GA 30084

Phone: (770) 723-7434 or (800) 241-3865

Fax: (770) 723-7436

E-mail: thensley@ets.org

Web site: http://www.cal.org/cal/html/cc14.htm
67

Region XV

American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia,

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,

Guam, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall Islands,

Republic of Palau

Pacific Center

Pacific Resources for Education Learning

John W. Kofel, Executive Director 

Fort Street Mall, Suite 500

Honolulu, HI 96813-4321

Phone: (808) 533-6000

Fax: (808) 533-7599

E-mail: kofelj@prel-oahu-1.prel.hawaii.edu

Web site: http://prel-oahu-1.prel.hawaii.edu

Regional Resource and Federal Center Program for Special Education. These centers

promote communication among states and school districts about implementing systemwide reform

with a particular focus on special education. They provide key technical assistance to state

education agencies, school districts, and their partners, as well as link SEAs and school districts

with providers of technical assistance.

The Federal Resource Centers for Education

Carol Valdivieso, Director

Academy for Educational Development

1875 Connecticut Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20009

Phone: (202) 884-8215

Fax: (202) 884-8443 

E-mail: frc@aed.org

Web site: http://www.dssc.org/frc/

Northeast Regional Resource Center

Dolly Fleming, Director

Trinity College of Vermont

Colchester Avenue

Burlington, VT 05401

Phone: (802) 658-503

Fax: (802) 658-7435

E-mail: nerrc@aol.com

Website://interact.uoregon.edu/wrrc/nerrc/index.html

Mid-South Regional Resource Center

Ken Olson, Director

Human Development Institute

University of Kentucky

126 Mineral Industries Building

Lexington, KY 40506-0051

Phone: (606) 257-4921

Fax: (606) 257-4353

E-mail: MSRRC@ihdi.ihdi.uky.edu

Web site: http://www.ihdi.uky.edu/projects/Msrrc/

Southeast Regional Resource Center

James Wright, Director

Auburn University Montgomery School of Education

Montgomery, AL 361124

Phone: (334)244-3879

Fax: (334)244-3835

Email:jwright@edla.aum.edu

Web: http://edla.aum.edu/serrc/serrc.html

Great Lakes Area Regional Resource Center

Larry Magliocca, Director

The Ohio State University

700 Ackerman Rd., Suite 440

Columbus, OH 43202

Phone: (614) 447-0844

Fax: (614) 447-9043 

E-mail: marshall.76@osu.edu

Web site: http://www.csnp.ohio-state.edu/glarrc.htm

Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center 

John Copenhaver, Director

Utah State University

1780 North Research Parkway, Suite 112

Logan, UT 84341

Phone: (801) 752-0238

Fax: (801) 753-9750

E-mail: cope@cc.usu.edu

Web site: http://www.usu.edu/~mprrc

Western Regional Resource Center

Richard Zeller, Director

1268 University of Oregon

Eugene, OR 97403-1268

Phone: (541) 346-5641

Fax: (541) 346-5639 

E-mail: richard_zeller@ccmail.uoregon.edu

Web site: http://interact.uoregon.edu/wrrc/wrrc.html
68

The Regional Educational Laboratories. The Regional Educational Laboratory program, the

Department’s largest research and development investment, provides a wealth of assistance that

can help schools end social promotion. The 10 regional laboratories help anyone involved in

improving education to gain access to the best available research and knowledge from practice. 

The laboratories are especially strong in helping schools identify needs, suggesting appropriate

remedies, and adapting reform programs to schools’ own needs. Laboratories can also help

schools improve curriculum, assessment, and evaluation practices.

Western Region

Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah

WestEd

Glen Harvey, Director

Tom Ross, Inquiries

730 Harrison St.

San Francisco, CA 94107

Phone: (415) 565-3000

Fax: (415) 565-3012

E-mail: tross@wested.org

Web site: http://www.wested.org

Specialty Area: Assessment and Accountability

Central Region

Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North

Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming

Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory 

J. Timothy Waters, Executive Director

2550 S. Parker Rd., Suite 500

Aurora, CO 80014

Phone: (303) 337-0990

Fax: (303) 337-3005

E-mail: twaters@mcrel.org

Web site: www.mcrel.org

Specialty Area: Curriculum, Learning and

Instruction

Midwestern Region

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,

Wisconsin

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory

(NCREL)

Jeri Nowakowski, Executive Director

1900 Spring Rd., Suite 300

Oak Brook, IL 60521

Phone: (630) 571-4700

Fax: (630) 571-4716

E-mail: info@ncrel.org

Web site: http://www.ncrel.org

Specialty Area: Technology

Northwestern Region

Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

Ethel Simon-McWilliams, Executive Director

101 SW Main St., Suite 500

Portland, OR 97204

Phone: (503) 275-9500 or (800) 547-6339

Fax: (503) 275-9489

E-mail: info@mwrel.org

Web site: http://www.nwrel.org

Specialty Area: School Change Processes

Pacific Region

American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia,

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,

Guam, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall Islands,

Republic of Palau

Pacific Resources for Education and Learning 

John W. Kofel, Executive Director

828 Fort Street Mall, Suite 500

Honolulu, HI 96813-4321

Phone: (808) 533-6000

Fax: (808) 533-7599

E-mail: kofelj@prel-oahu-1.prel.hawaii.edu

Web site: http://prel-oahu-1.prel.hawaii.edu

Specialty Area: Language and Cultural Diversity

Northeastern Region

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island,

Vermont, Virgin Islands

Northeast and Islands Laboratory at Brown

University (LAB)

Phil Zarlengo, Executive Director

222 Richmond St., Suite 300

Providence, RI 02903

Phone: (401) 274-9548 or (800) 521-9550

Fax: (401) 421-7650

E-mail: Phil_Zarlengo@Brown.edu

Web site: http://www.lab.brown.edu

Specialty Area: Language and Cultural Diversity
69

Mid-Atlantic Region

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

Washington, D.C.

Mid-Atlantic Laboratory for Student Success

(LSS)

Margaret Wang, Executive Director

933 Ritter Annex

1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave.

Philadelphia, PA 19122

Phone: (215) 204-3001

Fax: (215) 204-5130

E-mail: lss@vm.temple.org

Web site: http://www.temple.org/LSS

Specialty Area: Urban Education

Southeastern Region

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, South Carolina

SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education

(SERVE)

Don Holznagel, Acting Executive Director

P.O. Box 5367

Greensboro, NC 27435

Phone: (910) 334-3211 or (800) 755-3277

Fax: (910) 334-3268

E-mail: rforbes@serve.org

Web site: http://www.serve.org

Specialty Area: Early Childhood Education

Southwestern Region

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 

Wesley Hoover, Executive Director

211 E. Seventh St.

Austin, TX 78701

Phone: (512) 476-6861

Fax: (512) 476-2286

E-mail: whoover@sedl.org

Web site: http://www.sedl.org

Specialty Area: Language and Cultural Diversity

Appalachia Region

Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia

Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Inc. (AEL)

Terry Eidell, Director

1031 Quarrier St.

P.O. Box 1348

Charleston, WV 25325

Phone: (304) 347-0400 or (800) 624-9120

Fax: (304) 347-0487

E-mail: eidellt@ael.org

Web site: http://www.ael.org

Specialty Area: Rural Education

Equity Assistance Centers (formerly Desegregation Assistance Centers). The U.S.

Department of Education supports ten regional equity assistance centers under Title IV of the

1964 Civil Rights Act. They provide assistance in the areas of race, gender, and national origin

equity to public school districts to promote equal educational opportunities. For links to and

more information about these centers visit the Web site at

<http://www.ed.gov/EdRes/EdFed/equity.html>.

Research

Research & Development Centers. The Department’s Office of Educational Research and

Improvement (OERI) supports 12 Research & Development Centers. These centers, which are

located at major universities around the country, conduct research and development on topics

such as reading, the education of at-risk children, early childhood development, postsecondary

education, and education policy. These centers can be accessed through the Web at

<http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ResCtr.html>.

The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). ERIC offers many resources to

parents, students, teachers, and administrators who are interested in improving achievement at

their schools. ERIC is a national information system that provides ready access to an extensive
70

body of education-related literature. It is the world’s largest source of education information. 

The ERIC database contains nearly 1 million abstracts of documents and journal articles on

education research and practice. All ERIC clearinghouses have toll-free phone numbers and Web

sites. In addition, the ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology hosts ASK ERIC, a

service that responds within 48 hours to any question about education. You can ask questions

directly from the AskEric Web site at <http://www.askeric.org> or e-mail <askeric@askeric.org>.

The Fund for the Improvement of Education. This fund supports nationally significant

programs to improve the quality of education, help all students meet challenging state content

standards, and contribute to the achievement of the National Education Goals. Grants and

contracts may be awarded to state and local education agencies, institutions of higher education,

and other public and private organizations and institutions. Recently, projects have been funded

that might offer assistance to low-performing schools, including the development of state

curriculum frameworks, content standards, and standards-based professional development

projects. For more information, telephone Lois Weinberg at (202) 219-2147; e-mail:

Lois_Weinberg@ed.gov; or fax: (202) 219-2053.

The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education (ENC).

ENC serves as a central dissemination point for information about curriculum materials and

education reform. ENC promotes excellence in K-12 math and science education through a

comprehensive collection of curriculum materials and nationwide dissemination of information

and materials for all educators. ENC is located at Ohio State University, 1929 Kenny Road,

Columbus, OH 43210-1079; or telephone (614) 292-8389 or (800) 621-5785; or visit the Web

site at <http://www.enc.org>.

The Eisenhower Regional Consortia for Mathematics and Science Education. The

Consortia work in conjunction with the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse to support

professional development of K-12 teachers, including those located in low-performing schools. 

The Consortia of 10 grantees provides technical assistance and disseminates information to help

states and individual educators implement math and science programs in accordance with new

standards. Specific areas of assistance are teacher professional development, student assessment,

and uses of technology. For further information, telephone Carolyn Warren at (202) 219-2206.

Blue Ribbon Schools Program. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program promotes school

improvement by identifying and recognizing outstanding public and private schools, making

research-based effectiveness criteria available to all schools so that they can assess themselves and

plan improvements, and encouraging schools to share information about best practices. The

program specifically celebrates those schools that have shown significant improvement over five

years. For further information, see the Web site at

<http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/BlueRibbonSchools/about.html>.

Helpful Documents

The following documents are available by calling the U.S. Department of Education at 

1-877-4ED-PUBS. Additional publications are listed on the Department’s Web site at

<http://www.ed.gov>.
71

School Reform:

< Turning Around Low-Performing Schools: A Guide for State and Local Policymakers

< A Call to Action for American Education in the 21st Century

< Answer the Call to Action: Put High Expectations and Standards of Excellence into

Action in Your Schools. Questions, Ideas, and Information to Get You Started

< School-Based Reform Guide

< Implementing Schoolwide Programs: An Ideabook on Planning

< Improving Schools from the Bottom Up

Reading Well and Independently by the End of Third Grade:

< See America Reads Challenge website at <http://www.ed.gov/inits/americareads> for the

latest publications

< Just Add Kids: A Resource Directory of Learning Partners, Reading Sites, and Other

Literacy Organizations That Serve Children and Their Families

< Ready*Set*Read (in English or in Spanish)

< Simple Things

< Checkpoints for Progress

Preparing Students Academically and Financially for College:

< See Think College Early website at <http://www.ed.gov/thinkcollege/early> for the latest

publications

< Preparing Your Child for College

< Getting Ready for College Early: A Handbook for Parents of Students in the Middle and

Junior High School Years

< Think College? Me? Now?

Mastering the Basic and Core Subjects to Meet High Standards:

< Moving America to the Head of the Class

< Achieving the Goals, Goal 5: First in the World in Math and Science
72

Teacher Quality:

< Teachers and Goals 2000: Leading the Journey toward High Standards for All Students

< A New Teacher’s Guide to the U.S. Department of Education

< New Skills for New Teachers: Preparing Teachers in Family Involvement

< Promising Practices: New Ways to Improve Teacher Quality

Technology:

< Parents’ Guide to the Internet

Family and Community Involvement in Education:

< See Partnership for Family Involvement in Education website at <http://pfie.ed.gov> for

latest publications

< A Compact for Learning: An Action Handbook for Family-School-Community

Partnerships

< Strong Families, Strong Schools: Building Community Partnerships for Education

< Keeping Schools Open as Community Learning Centers

< America Goes Back to School

< Employers, Families, and Education

< Reaching All Families: Creating Family-Friendly Schools

< Seven Good Practices for Families (poster)

< Summer Home Learning Recipes for Parents

< Welcome to School: Questions Parents Might Ask

< Ideabook: Family Involvement in Children’s Education: Successful Local Approaches

Mentoring:

< Yes You Can: A Guide for Establishing Mentoring Programs to Prepare Youth for

College
73

Extending Learning Time:

< Safe and Smart: Making the After-School Hours Work for Kids

Safe and Drug-Free Schools:

< Creating Safe Schools: A Resource Collection for Planning and Action

< Growing Up Drug Free: A Parent’s Guide to Prevention

< Ready*Set*Go, an early childhood publication of the Safe and Drug Free Schools program

< Success Stories ’94: A Guide to Safe, Disciplined, & Drug-Free Schools

The following documents are available by calling OERI’s National Library of Education at 

1-800-424-1616 or 1-877-4EDPUBS

< Read with Me: A Guide for Student Volunteers Starting Early Childhood Programs 

< Tried and True: Tested Ideas for Teaching and Learning from the Regional Educational

Laboratories

< Transforming Ideas for Teaching and Learning Reading

< Confronting the Odds: Students at Risk and the Pipeline to Higher Education

< Early Childhood Digest: Families and Teachers as Partners

< Reaching All Families

< Parent Involvement in Children’s Education: Efforts by Public Elementary Schools
Bibliography

Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., & Dauber, S.L. (1995). On the Success of Failure. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

American Federation of Teachers. (1998). Making Standards Matter 1998. Washington D.C.:

Author. 

American Federation of Teachers. (1997). Eliminating Social Promotion. Washington D.C.:

Author.

American Federation of Teachers. (1997). Passing on Failure: District Promotion Policies and

Practices. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Asimov, Nanette. (1998, April 4). “Teachers Told to Pump Up Grades”. San Francisco

Chronicle.

Bishop, J. (1998). Do Curriculum-Based External Exit Systems Enhance Student Achievement?

Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Breneman, D. & Haarlow, W. (1998). Remediation in Higher Education. Washington D.C.:

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation

Coleman, A. (1998). "Excellence and Equity in Education: High Standards for High Stakes

Tests," Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law 6 (81).

Cooke, G. & Stammer, J. (1985). “Grade Retention and Social Promotion.” Childhood

Education, 61(4), 302-308.

Council for Basic Education. (1998). Standards for Excellence in Education. Washington D.C.:

Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1998). Key State Education Policies on K-12

Education: A 50 State Report. Washington D.C.: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1998). Survey of State Student Assessment Programs. 

Washington D.C.: Author.

Daley, B. (1998, May 19). “School Committee to Propose Tough Standards for Promotion”.

Boston Globe.

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1998, August). “Alternatives to Grade Retention.” School

Administrator (55) 7.

Darling-Hammond, S. & Falk, B. (1995) Using Standards and Assessments to Support Student

Learning. New York: National Center for Restructuring Education.
Editorial Projects in Education. (1999). Education Week: Quality Counts. Washington, D.C.:

Author.

Finn, J.D. (1998). Class Size and Students At Risk: What is Known? What is Next? Washington

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Gaustad, Joan. (1997, June). Building Support for Multiage Education.” ERIC Digest, 114.

Gaustad, Joan. (1993, March). “Peer and Cross-Age Tutoring.” ERIC Digest, 79.

Hart, P. D. (1996). Academic Standards and Student Discipline: AFT Teachers Assess Their

Schools.

Hauser, R.M. (1999) “What If We Ended Social Promotion?” Education Week (April 7).

Hauser, R.M. (1998, December 4) “Should We End Social Promotion? Truth and

Consequences”. A paper prepared for a conference on Civil Rights and High Stakes K-12

Testing, Harvard University.

Haycock, K. (1998). “Good Teaching Matters.” Thinking K-16. Washington D.C.: Education

Trust.

Hendrie, C. “Do or Die”. (1997, Aug 6) Education Week.

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.

Johnson, E., Merrell, K. and Stover L. (1990). “The Effects of Early Grade Retention on the

Academic Achievement of Fourth Grade Students.” Psychology in the Schools.

Karweit, N.L. (1998). Grade Retention: Prevalence, Timing, and Effects. CRESPAR Report

No. 33. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

Karweit, N.L. (1991). Repeating a Grade: Time to Grow or Denial of Opportunity? Center for

Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students Report No. 16. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University.

Katz, N.L. (1998, June 29). “50,000 Rush Summer School.” New York Daily News.

Lewis, A. (1992, December). “Helping Young Urban Parents Educate Themselves and Their

Children,” ERIC/Clearinghouse on Urban Education No. 85.

Madaus, G.F. et al. (1992). The Influence of Testing on Teaching Math and Science in Grades

4-12. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and

Educational Policy.
Madaus, G.F. (1988). “The Influence of Testing on the Curriculum”. In Tanner, L.N. (ed.),

Critical Issues in the Curriculum: 87th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of

Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mantzicopoulos, P. and Morrison, D. (1992). “Kindergarten Retention: Academic and

Behavioral Outcomes Through the End of Second Grade.” American Educational Research

Journal, 29, 182-198.

McPartland, J. (1998). “Improving Climate and Achievement in a Troubled Urban High School

Through the Talent Development Model”. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk,

3(4) 337-361.

McPartland, J. (1997, October). “Finding Safety in Small Numbers”. Educational Leadership,

14-17.

Meisels, Samuel J., & Liaw, F. (1993). “Failure in Grade: Do Retained Students Catch Up?”

Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 69-77.

National Association of School Psychologists. (1996). Should My Child Repeat a Grade?

Bethesda, MD: Author.

National Association of School Psychologists. (1988). Position Statement: Student Grade

Retention. Bethesda, MD: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Factors Associated with Mother’s and

Father’s Involvement in Their Children’s Schools. Washington D.C.: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). NAEP Math Report Card. Washington D.C.:

Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). National Household Education Survey: The

Elementary School Performance and Adjustment of Children Who Enter Kindergarten Late or

Repeat Kindergarten. Washington D.C.: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington

D.C.: Author.

National Research Council. (1998). High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion, and

Graduation. J.M. Heubert and R.M. Hauser (eds). Washington D.C: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. C.E.

Snow, M.S. Burns, and P. Grifin (eds.). Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Oakes, J., Wells, A.S., & Jones M. (1997, Spring). “Detracking: The Social Construction of

Ability, Cultural Politics, and Resistance to Reform”. Teachers College Record 98:3, 482-510.
Oakes, J. & Wells, A.S. (1996). Beyond the Technicalities of School Reform: Policy Lessons

from Detracking Schools. Los Angeles: UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information

Studies.

O’Day, J. & Smith, M. S. (1993). “Systemic Reform and Educational Opportunity”. In S.H.

Fuhrman (ed.), Designing Coherent Education Policy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Olson, Lynn. (1998, February 11). “The Push for Accountability Gathers Steam,” Education

Week.

Pierson, L. & Connell, J. (1992). “Effect of Grade Retention on Self-System Processes, School

Engagement, and Academic Performance.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 300-307.

Public Agenda. (1998). Reality Check. New York: Author.

Reynolds, A., Temple, J., & McCoy, A. (1997, September 17). “Grade Retention Doesn’t

Work”. Education Week.

Reynolds, A. (1992). “Grade Retention and School Adjustment”. Educational Evaluation and

Policy Analysis, 14, 101-121.

Robertson, A. S. (1997, May). When Retention Is Recommended, What Should Parents Do?

ERIC Digest, Champaign, IL: Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Rossi, Robert. (1994). Schools and Students At Risk. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sanchez, R. (1997, September 17). “AFT Criticizes Practice of Social Promotion”. Education

Week.

Schuyler, N. B. (1985, April). “Does Retention Help? Perspectives After Three Years”. Paper

Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,

Illinois.

Setencich, J. (1994, March). “The Impact of Early Grade Retention on the Academic

Achievement and Self-Esteem of Seventh and Eight Grade Students”. Paper Presented at the

Annual Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Seattle.

Shepard, L.A. & Smith, M.L. (1990). “Synthesis of Research on Grade Retention”. Educational

Leadership, 47, 84-88.

Shepard, L.A. & Smith, M.L. (1989). Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on Retention. 

London: Falmer Press.

Slavin, Robert. (1990). Cooperative Learning. Englewood Cliifs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Smith, M.L., and Shepard, L.A. (1987). “What Doesn’t Work: Explaining Policies of Retention

in the Early Grades”. Phi Delta Kappan, 69 (2), 129-134.
Smith, M. L. (1991). “Put to the Test: The Effects of External Testing on Teachers”.

Educational Researcher, 20 (5), 8-11.

Stahl, Robert. (1994, March). “The Essential Elements of Cooperative Learning.” ERIC Digest.

Thompson, Charles L. (January 1999). Research on Retention and Social Promotion: Synthesis

and Implications for Policy. Chapel Hill: The North Carolina Research Council.

U.S. Department of Education. (1994) Prospects: The Congressionally Mandated study of

Educational Growth and Opportunity. Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service. (1996). Current Population

Statistics special tabulations. Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Factors Associated with Father’s and Mother’s

Involvement in Their Children’s Schools. Washington D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Reaching All Families: Creating Family-Friendly

Schools. Washington D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Family Involvement in Children’s Education. 

Washington D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Implementing Schoolwide Programs: An Idea Book on

Planning (Volume I). Washington D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). District Survey: Local Implementation of Federal

Programs (unpublished tabulations prepared for the Planning and Evaluation Service).

U.S. Department of Education. A Talented, Dedicated, and Well-Prepared Teacher in Every

Classroom: Information Kit. Washington D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Improving Opportunities: Strategies from the Secretary

of Education for Hispanic and Limited English Proficient Students. Washington D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Safe and Smart: Making After-School Hours Work For

Kids. Washington D.C.: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The Final

Report of the National Assessment of Title I. Washington D.C.

Westbury, M. (1994, Summer). “The Effect of Elementary Grade Retention on Subsequent

School Achievement.” Canadian Journal of Education, 19:3, 241-50.

Woodward, S.K. & Kimmey, T.M. (1997). “The Impact of Repeating a Grade: A Review of

Research in the 90s”. Occasional Paper No. 25. University of Maine Center for Research and

Evaluation.
Acknowledgments

Many people helped prepare this guide by providing information, research, or feedback. The

Department would like to thank the parents, teachers, and principals who participated in focus

groups to discuss the issue of social promotion and strategies to prevent and intervene in school

failure. Thanks go to Belden Russonello & Stewart for conducting the focus groups.

We also are grateful for the advice and reviews of several individuals outside the Department: 

Judith Rizzo, Deputy Chancellor for Instruction, New York City; Eric Smith, Superintendent,

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools; Karl Alexander, Johns Hopkins University; Samuel Meisels,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Lorrie Shepard, University of Colorado, Boulder; and Steve

Fleischman, American Federation of Teachers. The regional educational laboratories provided

examples of districts that have made ending social promotion a priority; Barbara Vespucci and

Robert Stonehill from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement assembled these

examples.

Particular thanks go to the numerous people inside the Department who reviewed and commented

on this guide. Many others provided examples, advice, and insight as we drafted this guide, and

we apologize for not being able to acknowledge individually all of their hard work. Special

thanks go to Michael Rubenstein, Lisa Weiner, and Ben Lagueruela of Policy Studies Associates

for their support work on this project, and Priscilla Taylor for copyediting the manuscript.

This guide was a joint project of the Planning and Evaluation Service (PES) and the Office of

Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), with the Office of Educational Research and

Improvement (OERI) and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Planning and Evaluation Service

staff member Kathryn Doherty prepared the document, assisted by summer interns, Deena

Margolis and Joey Feldman, with additional help from Joanne Wiggins, PES. Frances Shadburn

and Catherine Jovicich, OESE, assembled the research literature; Debra Hollinger Martinez and

Edward Fuentes, OERI, prepared a synthesis of the effects of social promotion and retention. Art

Coleman from the Office for Civils Rights provided the section on high-stakes testing. Joleta

Reynolds and Tom Hehir (OSEP) provided guidance on special education issues. Val Plisko,

PES, and Judith Johnson, Acting Assistant Secretary, OESE, provided overall direction,

supported by Ellen Conaway, OESE. Mike Cohen, Special Advisor the the Secretary, Terry

Peterson, Counselor to the Secretary, Gerry Tirozzi, former Assistant Secretary, OESE, Mike

Smith, Deputy Secretary (A), and Ann O’Leary in the Office of the Deputy Secretary offered

valuable insights on the issues as the manuscript progressed. 
1. For more on the effects of retention see Woodward and Kimmey, 1997; Alexander, Entwisle,

and Dauber, 1994; Westbury, 1994; Matzicopoulos and Morrison, 1992; Pierson and Connell,

1992; Reynolds, 1992; and Johnson, Merrell, and Stover, 1990; Setencich, 1994.

2. Hauser, 1998.

3. Peter D. Hart Associates, 1996, findings published in American Federation of Teachers, 1997.

4. National Center for Education Statistics, 1992.

5. National Center for Education Statistics, 1996; Current Population Statistics, 1996.

6. Asimov, 1998.

7. Hauser, 1998.

8. Karweit, 1998.

9. Current Population Statistics, 1996. 

10. Public Agenda, 1998.

11. Peter D. Hart Associates, 1996. All of the findings were also published in American

Federation of Teachers, 1997.

12. Peter D. Hart Associates, 1996, All of the findings were also published in American

Federation of Teachers, 1997.

13. American Federation of Teachers, 1998.

14. Thompson, 1999.

15. Smith and Shepard, 1987; Setencich, 1994; Sakowicz, 1996.

16. Daley, 1998.

17. American Federation of Teachers, 1997; U.S. Department of Education, unpublished

tabulations.

18. Later information from Education Week (Quality Counts ‘99) shows many states in the

planning stages only for exit exams aligned to tenth-grade standards.

19. American Federal of Teachers, 1998.

20. Bishop, 1998.

21. Public Agenda, 1998.

Notes
22. U.S. Department of Education, 1994.

23. Public Agenda, 1996.

24. O’Day and Smith, 1993.

25. American Federation of Teachers, 1997; Education Week, 1998; Council of Chief State

School Officers, 1998.

26. U.S. Department of Education, Promising Results, Continuing Challenges: The Final Report

of the National Assessment of Title I, 1999.

27. National Research Council, 1998.

28. National Center for Education Statistics, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 1997;

Henderson and Lewis, 1997.

29. U.S. Department of Education, 1996, 1997.

30. U.S. Department of Education, 1998. 

31. NAEP, 1996; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 1996.

32. National Research Council, 1998.

33. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996.

34. U.S. Department of Education, 1996; Lewis, 1992.

35. U.S. Department of Education. 

36. Oakes, 1985; 1995.

37. U.S. Department of Education, 1998.

38. U.S. Department of Education, 1998.

39. U.S. Department of Education, 1998.

40. Education Week, 1998.

41. McPartland, 1997.

42. McPartland, 1998.

43. Gallup, 1998

44. Education Week, 1999.