Ending social promotion without leaving children behind: the case of New York City
Many states and school districts are implementing test-based requirements for promotion at key transitional points in students' schooling careers, thus ending the practice of "social promotion" - promoting students who have failed to meet academic standards and requirements for that g...
Gespeichert in:
| Format: | Buch |
|---|---|
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Santa Monica, CA
RAND
2009
|
| Schriftenreihe: | RAND Education
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| Zusammenfassung: | Many states and school districts are implementing test-based requirements for promotion at key transitional points in students' schooling careers, thus ending the practice of "social promotion" - promoting students who have failed to meet academic standards and requirements for that grade. In 2003-2004, the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE), which oversees the largest public school system in the country, implemented a new test-based promotion policy for 3rd-grade students and later extended it to 5th, 7th, and 8th graders. The policy emphasized early identification of children at risk of being retained in grade and provision of instructional support services to these students. NYCDOE asked RAND to conduct an independent longitudinal evaluation of the 5th-grade promotion policy and to examine the outcomes for two cohorts of 3rd-grade students. The findings of that study, conducted between March 2006 and August 2009, provide a comprehensive picture of how the policy was implemented and factors affecting implementation; the impact of the policy on student academic and socioemotional outcomes; and the links between the policy's implementation and the outcomes of at-risk students. Two other publications in this series provide a review of the prevailing literature on retention and lessons learned about policy design from top-level administrators across the country. |
| Beschreibung: | Includes bibliographical references |
| Beschreibung: | XXXIV, 273 S. Ill., graph. Darst. |
| ISBN: | 9780833047786 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000zc 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV036061604 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20100529 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 100304s2009 xxuad|| |||| 00||| eng d | ||
| 010 | |a 2009032280 | ||
| 020 | |a 9780833047786 |c pbk. : alk. paper |9 978-0-8330-4778-6 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)433549134 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV036061604 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e aacr | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 044 | |a xxu |c US | ||
| 049 | |a DE-29 | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a LB3063 | |
| 082 | 0 | |a 371.2/8097471 | |
| 084 | |a DI 1002 |0 (DE-625)19574:763 |2 rvk | ||
| 084 | |a 5,3 |2 ssgn | ||
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Ending social promotion without leaving children behind |b the case of New York City |c Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Sheila Nataraj Kirby and Louis T. Mariano, ed. |
| 264 | 1 | |a Santa Monica, CA |b RAND |c 2009 | |
| 300 | |a XXXIV, 273 S. |b Ill., graph. Darst. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 0 | |a RAND Education | |
| 500 | |a Includes bibliographical references | ||
| 520 | 3 | |a Many states and school districts are implementing test-based requirements for promotion at key transitional points in students' schooling careers, thus ending the practice of "social promotion" - promoting students who have failed to meet academic standards and requirements for that grade. In 2003-2004, the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE), which oversees the largest public school system in the country, implemented a new test-based promotion policy for 3rd-grade students and later extended it to 5th, 7th, and 8th graders. The policy emphasized early identification of children at risk of being retained in grade and provision of instructional support services to these students. NYCDOE asked RAND to conduct an independent longitudinal evaluation of the 5th-grade promotion policy and to examine the outcomes for two cohorts of 3rd-grade students. The findings of that study, conducted between March 2006 and August 2009, provide a comprehensive picture of how the policy was implemented and factors affecting implementation; the impact of the policy on student academic and socioemotional outcomes; and the links between the policy's implementation and the outcomes of at-risk students. Two other publications in this series provide a review of the prevailing literature on retention and lessons learned about policy design from top-level administrators across the country. | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Promotion (School) |z New York (State) |z New York |v Case Studies | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Grade repetition |z New York (State) |z New York |v Case Studies | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Schulpolitik |0 (DE-588)4053532-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a New York |g Staat |0 (DE-588)4042012-7 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 655 | 7 | |0 (DE-588)4143413-4 |a Aufsatzsammlung |2 gnd-content | |
| 655 | 7 | |0 (DE-588)4522595-3 |a Fallstudiensammlung |2 gnd-content | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a New York |g Staat |0 (DE-588)4042012-7 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Schulpolitik |0 (DE-588)4053532-0 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a McCombs, Jennifer Sloan |d 1970- |e Sonstige |0 (DE-588)130156450 |4 oth | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung UB Erlangen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=018953072&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-018953072 | ||
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804141106234916864 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | CONTENTS PREFACE III FIGURES XIII TABLES XVII SUMMARY XXI
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XXXI ABBREVIATIONS XXXIII CHAPTERONE INTRODUCTION
......... ....... ........ .... .. .. .. ... .............. ...
................ .... ... .............. 1 SHEILA NATARAJ KIRBY,
JENNIFER SLOAN MCCOMBS, AND LOUIS T. MARIANO THE CURRENT STUDY 2
CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY 4 TERMINOLOGY 5 ORGANIZATION OFTHIS MONOGRAPH
5 CHAPTERTWO WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF GRADE RETENTION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROMOTION POLICIES 7 NAILING XIA AND SHEILA NATARAJ
KIRBY METHODS 7 CHARACTERISTICS OF RETAINED STUDENTS 10 EFFECTS OF GRADE
RETENTION ON STUDENTS ACADEMIC AND NONACADEMIC OUTCOMES 11 EFFECT ON
ACADEMIC OUTCOMES 11 EFFECT ON SOCIOEMOTIONAL OUTCOMES 12 EFFECT ON THE
PROPENSITY TO DROP OUT OF SCHOOL. 13 EFFECT OFSUPPORTIVE COMPONENTS
OFPROMOTION POLICIES ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 14 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAMS
AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 14 FINDINGS ON OTHER SUPPORTIVE COMPONENTS OF
RETENTION POLICIES 15 SUMMARY 16 V VI ENDING SOCIAL PROMOTION WITHOUT
LEAVING CHILDREN BEHIND: THE CASE OF NEW YORK CITY CHAPTER THREE CONTEXT
AND CONEEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING NEW YORK CITY S PROMOTION
POLIEY 17 JENNIFER SLOAN MCCOMBS, SHEILA NATARAJ KIRBY,JULIE A. MARSH,
AND CATHERINE DIMARTINO NEW YORK CITY S REFORM INITIATIVE 17 THE
CHILDREN FIRST INITIATIVE 17 THE PROMOTION POLICY 19 CRITERIA FAR
PROMOTION 19 KEY COMPONENTS 21 SUPPORT STRUCTURES FOR THE PROMOTION
POLIEY 22 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 24 MAJOR RESEARCH QUESTIONS . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. 30 SUMMARY. .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. 30 CHAPTERFOUR DATA AND METHODS 33 SHEILA
NATARAJ KIRBY, LOUIS T. MARIANO, AND JENNIFER SLOAN MCCOMBS DATA 33
INTERVIEWS WITH REGIONAL DIRECTORS OF INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES AND SCHOOL
SUPPORT ORGANIZATION LEADERS 33 CASE-STUDY SITE VISITS 34 SELECTION OF
CASE-STUDY SITES 34 ADMINISTRATOR SURVEYS 35 STUDENT SURVEYS . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . ..
. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . ..
38 DATA ON SCHOOL CHARACTERISTIES 41 LONGITUDINALLY LINKED STUDENT DATA
41 METHODS. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . .. 42 ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTATION
42 ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF SUPPORTIVE INTERVENTIONS AND RETENTION ON
ACADEMIE OUTCOMES 45 ANALYZING DIFFERENCES IN STUDENTS SOCIOEMOTIONAL
ATTITUDES AND THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH FUTURE ACHIEVEMENT . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. 50 STUDY LIMITATIONS 51
SUMMARY 53 CONTENTS VII CHAPTER FIVE SEHOOL-PROVIDED SUPPORT FOR
STUDENTS: AEADEMIC INTERVENTION SERVICES 55 JENNIFER SLOAN MCCOMBS,
SCOTT NAFTEL, GINA SCHUYLER IKEMOTO, CATHERINE DIMARTINO, AND DANIEL
GERSHWIN PROFILE OF NYC SCHOOLS WITH A 5TH GRADE. . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .. 56 STUDENTS NEEDING SERVICES ACROSS SCHOOLS 57 SELECTION
AND MONITORING OF STUDENTS 60 PROCESS FOR SELECTION AND MONITORING OF
STUDENTS FAR AIS. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
. . . . .. 60 STUDENTS TARGETED FOR SERVICES 61 ACADEMIC INTERVENTION
SERVICE PROVISION 63 PROVIDERS 63 TYPES OF ACADEMIC INTERVENTION SERVICE
PROGRAMS 64 FOCUS OF INTERVENTION SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66 PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS 67 ADDITIONAL
SCHOOL STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE STUDENT PERFORMANCE. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. 68 SUPPORT FOR PROMOTION POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION 70 HINDRANCES TO IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF IN-NEED
5TH-GRADE STUDENTS 72 PERCEPTIONS REGARDING STUDENT RETENTION AND THE
PROMOTION POLICY 74 EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG SCHOOL CONTEXT,
IMPLEMENTATION FACTORS, AND STUDENTS OUTCOMES ON THE SPRING
ASSESSMENTS. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
. . . . . . . . . . . .. 77 SUMMARY 78 CHAPTERSIX IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
POLICY: SATURDAY AND SUMMER SEHOOLS 81 GINA SCHUYLER IKEMOTO, JENNIFER
SLOAN MCCOMBS, CATHERINE DIMARTINO, AND SCOTT NAFTEL SATURDAY
PREPARATORY ACADEMIES 82 PROFILE OF SATURDAY PREPARATORY ACADEMIES AND
STUDENTS 82 STUDENT PARTICIPATION 83 SCHEDULE. . .. . . . . .. . . .. .
. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .
. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
84 STAFFING . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86 CURRICULUM. . . . . .
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .. 87 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88 COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SPAS AND
SCHOOLS 88 PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF SPAS 89 SUMMER SUCCESS ACADEMIES
90 PROFILE OF SUMMER SUCCESS ACADEMIES 91 STUDENT PARTICIPATION 91
SCHEDULE 93 STAFFING 93 CURRICULUM. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . ..
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94 VIII ENDING
SODAL PROMOTION WITHOUT LEAVING CHILDREN BEHIND: THE CASEOF NEW YORK
CITY INTERVENTION 94 TIME FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . ..
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .. . . . . . . . .. 94 PORTFOLIOS 95 FACTORS PERCEIVED TO AFFECT
IMPLEMENTATION OF SPAS AND SSAS 95 FACTORS HINDERING IMPLEMENTATION 95
FACTORS ENABLING IMPLEMENTATION 97 SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .
. . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .. 98 CHAPTERSEVEN PERFORMANCE OF 5TH GRADERS IN NEW YORK CITY AND
OVERALL PERFORMANCE TRENDS IN NEWYORKSTATE 101 SHEILA NATARAJ KIRBY,
SCOTT NAFTEL, JENNIFER SLOAN MCCOMBS, DANIEL GERSHWIN, ANDAL CREGO
PERFORMANCE OF THE NYC 5TH-GRADE COHORTS 101 STUDENTS WHO WERE SUBJECR
TO THE PROMOTION POLIEY 101 OVERALL PERFORMANCE ON THE 5TH-GRADE SPRING
ASSESSMENTS 102 SNAPSHOTS OF THE 5TH-GRADE COHORTS . . . . . . . .. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .. 104 PROFILE OF RETAINED STUDENTS 108 PERFORMANCE OF
AT-RISK STUDENTS IN LATER YEARS 111 PERFORMANCE OFRETAINED STUDENTS IN
LATER YEARS 112 PERFORMANCE OF AT-RISK PROMOTED STUDENTS IN LATER YEARS
115 ACHIEVEMENT TRENDS IN GRADES 3-8: NEW YORK CITY AND THE REST OFNEW
YORK STATE 119 PERFORMANCE ON THE SPRING ELA ASSESSMENTS, GRADES 3-8 119
PERFORMANCE ON THE SPRING MATHEMATIES ASSESSMENTS, GRADES 3-8 121
DISCUSSION 122 SUMMARY 125 STUDENTS HELD TO THE PROMOTION POLICY 125
STUDENTS WHO NEEDED SERVIEES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SCHOOL YEAR 125
STUDENT PERFORMANCE ON THE PROXIMAL-YEAR SPRING ASSESSMENTS 125
FIFTH-GRADE PROMOTION/RETENTION OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS AT RISK OF
RETENTION 125 RETAINED STUDENTS 126 PERFORMANCE OF AT-RISK STUDENTS ON
HIGHER-GRADE SPRING ASSESSMENTS 126 COMPARING PERFORMANCE TRENDS IN NYC
AND THE REST OF THE STATE 126 CHAPTER EIGHT MEASURING THE EFFECT OF
SUPPORTIVE INTERVENTIONS ON PROXIMAL-YEAR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 127 LOUIS
T. MARIANO, SHEILA NATARAJ KIRBY, AL CREGO,AND CLAUDE MESSAN SETODJI
ANALYTIC METHODS 128 PROPENSITY SCORE WEIGHTING AND DOUBLY ROBUST
REGRESSION 128 MODELING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTENSITY
OFPARTICIPATION AND OUTCOMES 131 CONTENTS IX OUTCOMES OF STUDENTS
NEEDING SERVICES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR BASED ON PRIOR-YEAR SCORES
131 PERFORMANCE OF 5TH GRADERS ON THE PROXIMAL-YEAR SPRING ASSESSMENTS
131 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FREQUENCY OF SPA ATTENDANCE AND PERFORMANCE
ON THE 5TH-GRADE SPRING ASSESSMENTS 135 SUMMER OUTCOMES OF STUDENTS AT
RISK OF RETENTION BASED ON PERFORMANCE ON THE PROXIMAL-YEAR SPRING
ASSESSMENTS 138 PERFORMANCE OF AT-RISK 5TH GRADERS ON THE PROXIMAL
SUMMER ASSESSMENTS 138 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FREQUENCY OF SSA
ATTENDANCE AND PERFORMANCE ON THE SUMMER ASSESSMENTS 139 SUMMARY 140
EFFECT OF BEING IDENTIFIED AS NEEDING SERVICES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
SCHOOL YEAR: PI COHORT 140 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPA ATTENDANCE AND
SPRING ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES: PI AND P2 COHORTS 141 EFFECT OF BEING
MANDATED TO ATTEND SSA: PI COHORT 141 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SSA
ATTENDANCE AND SUMMER ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES: P2 AND P3 COHORTS 141 CHAPTER
NINE FUTURE OUTCOMES OFSTUDENTS AT RISKOFRETENTION 143 LOUIS T. MARIANO,
SHEILA NATARAJ KIRBY, AND AL CREGO ANALYTIC METHODS 144 PROPENSITY SCORE
WEIGHTING AND DOUBLY ROBUST REGRESSION 144 REGRESSION DISCONTINUITY
DESIGN MODELS 145 FUTURE OUTCOMES OF STUDENTS NEEDING SERVICES AT THE
BEGINNING OF 5TH GRADE BASED ON PRIOR-YEAR SCORES 148 FUTURE OUTCOMES OF
STUDENTS AT RISK OF RETENTION IN THE 5TH GRADE 151 PERFORMANCE OF ALL
5TH GRADERS ON THE 7TH-GRADE SPRING ASSESSMENTS 151 DISENTANGLING THE
EFFECTS OF SUMMER INTERVENTIONS AND RETENTION ON FUTURE OUTCOMES:
COMPARING STUDENTS NEAR THE TREATMENT THRESHOLD 155 THE EFFECT OF
RETENTION ON FUTURE OUTCOMES: COMPARING STUDENTS NEAR THE TREATMENT
THRESHOLD 156 THE EFFECT OF SSA ON FUTURE OUTCOMES: COMPARING STUDENTS
NEAR THE TREATMENT THRESHOLD 160 SUMMARY 162 SEVENTH-GRADE OUTCOMES FOR
STUDENTS IDENTIFIED FOR SERVICES IN THE 5TH GRADE, PI COHORT. 162
SEVENTH-GRADE OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS AT RISK OF RETENTION, PI COHORT 163
SIXTH- AND 7TH-GRADE OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS ATTENDING SSA AND RETAINED,
PI AND P2 COHORTS 163 X ENDING SODAL PROMOTION WITHOUT LEAVING CHILDREN
BEHIND: THE CASEOF NEW YORK CITY CHAPTERTEN LHE IMPACT OFNEW YORK CITY S
PROMOTION POLIEY ON STUDENTS SOCIOEMOTIONAL STATUS. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .
. .. . .. .. 165 VI-NHUAN LE, LOUIS T. MARIANO, AND AL CREGO SURVEY
MEASURES 166 SCHOOL BELONGING SCALE 166 MATHEMATICS CONFIDENCE SCALE 167
READING CONFIDENCE SCALE 167 TIMING OF SURVEYS AND TOTAL NUMBER OF
RESPONSES 167 ANALYTIC METHODS 168 SURVEY WEIGHTING 168 IMPUTATION 169
ESTIMATING SURVEY SCALE SCORES 169 MULTIPLE STATISTICAL TESTS 170
REGRESSION MODELS.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .
. . . . . . . .. . . . .. 170 STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS 171 DISTRIBUTIONAL
DIFFERENCES IN SOCIOEMOTIONAL RESPONSES AMONG RETAINED, AT-RISK
PROMOTED, AND NOT-AT-RISK STUDENTS 171 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GRADE
LEVELS, PROMOTION STATUS, AND SOCIOEMOTIONAL OUTCOMES 173 RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN RETENTION AND STUDENTS LATER SOCIOEMOTIONAL OUTCOMES 174
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROMOTION CRITERIA AND AT-RISK STUDENTS
SOCIOEMOTIONAL OUTCOMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .
. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . .. 177 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
STUDENTS SOCIOEMOTIONAL RESPONSES AND FUTURE RETENTION STATUS. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .
. . . . .. . .. .. 179 SUMMARY 182 CHAPTER ELEVEN CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY
IMPLICATIONS 183 SHEILA NATARAJ KIRBY, JENNIFER SLOAN MCCOMBS, AND LOUIS
T. MARIANO FINDINGS 184 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY AND EFFECTS ON
STUDENTS AEADEMIC OUTCOMES 184 WHAT WERE THE TRENDS IN STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT FOR STUDENTS SUBJECT TO THE POLICY? 186 HOW DID 5TH GRADERS
NEEDING SERVICES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR PERFORM ON THE SPRING
ASSESSMENTS RELATIVE TO THE CONTROL COHORT? 186 HOW EFFECTIVE WERE
SPECIFIC SUPPORTS IN HELPING LOW-PERFORMING STUDENTS MEET PROMOTION
STANDARDS IN THE SPRING? 186 IS SSA MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TYPICAL SUMMER
SCHOOL IN IMPROVING PERFORMANCE ON THE SUMMER ASSESSMENTS? 186 WHAT IS
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SSA ATTENDANCE AND PERFORMANCE ON THE SUMMER
ASSESSMENTS? 187 CONTENTS XI WHO WAS RETAINED UNDER THE PROMOTION
POLIEY? 187 HOW DID RETAINED STUDENTS PERFORM ON THE REPEATED 5TH-GRADE
ASSESSMENTS AND ON HIGHER-GRADE ASSESSMENTS? 187 HOW DID AT-RISK
STUDENTS PERFORM ON HIGHER-GRADE ASSESSMENTS? 188 WHAT WERE THE EFFEETS
OF THE PROMOTION POLIEY ON STUDENT AEHIEVEMENT OVER TIME? 188
SOCIOEMOTIONAL OUTEOMES OF STUDENTS HELD TO THE PROMOTION POLIEY 189
LESSONS LEARNED ABOUT THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROMOTION
POLICIES 189 INTERPRETING THE FINDINGS 191 POLIEY REEOMMENDATIONS . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 193 APPENDIXES A.
TECHNICALAPPENDIX FOR ACHIEVEMENT MODELS 195 B. SUPPORTING DATA FOR
CHAPTER FIVE 203 C. SUPPORTING DATA FOR CHAPTER SEVEN 219 D.
SUPPORTINGDATA FOR CHAPTER TEN 229 E. DATA ANDANALYSES FOR 3RD-GRADE
COHORTS 239 REFERENCES 263
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author_GND | (DE-588)130156450 |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV036061604 |
| callnumber-first | L - Education |
| callnumber-label | LB3063 |
| callnumber-raw | LB3063 |
| callnumber-search | LB3063 |
| callnumber-sort | LB 43063 |
| callnumber-subject | LB - Theory and Practice of Education |
| classification_rvk | DI 1002 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)433549134 (DE-599)BVBBV036061604 |
| dewey-full | 371.2/8097471 |
| dewey-hundreds | 300 - Social sciences |
| dewey-ones | 371 - Schools and their activities; special education |
| dewey-raw | 371.2/8097471 |
| dewey-search | 371.2/8097471 |
| dewey-sort | 3371.2 78097471 |
| dewey-tens | 370 - Education |
| discipline | Pädagogik |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>03340nam a2200481zc 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV036061604</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20100529 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">100304s2009 xxuad|| |||| 00||| eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="010" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">2009032280</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9780833047786</subfield><subfield code="c">pbk. : alk. paper</subfield><subfield code="9">978-0-8330-4778-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)433549134</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV036061604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">aacr</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="044" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">xxu</subfield><subfield code="c">US</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-29</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">LB3063</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">371.2/8097471</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DI 1002</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)19574:763</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">5,3</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Ending social promotion without leaving children behind</subfield><subfield code="b">the case of New York City</subfield><subfield code="c">Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Sheila Nataraj Kirby and Louis T. Mariano, ed.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Santa Monica, CA</subfield><subfield code="b">RAND</subfield><subfield code="c">2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">XXXIV, 273 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill., graph. Darst.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">RAND Education</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Includes bibliographical references</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Many states and school districts are implementing test-based requirements for promotion at key transitional points in students' schooling careers, thus ending the practice of "social promotion" - promoting students who have failed to meet academic standards and requirements for that grade. In 2003-2004, the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE), which oversees the largest public school system in the country, implemented a new test-based promotion policy for 3rd-grade students and later extended it to 5th, 7th, and 8th graders. The policy emphasized early identification of children at risk of being retained in grade and provision of instructional support services to these students. NYCDOE asked RAND to conduct an independent longitudinal evaluation of the 5th-grade promotion policy and to examine the outcomes for two cohorts of 3rd-grade students. The findings of that study, conducted between March 2006 and August 2009, provide a comprehensive picture of how the policy was implemented and factors affecting implementation; the impact of the policy on student academic and socioemotional outcomes; and the links between the policy's implementation and the outcomes of at-risk students. Two other publications in this series provide a review of the prevailing literature on retention and lessons learned about policy design from top-level administrators across the country.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Promotion (School)</subfield><subfield code="z">New York (State)</subfield><subfield code="z">New York</subfield><subfield code="v">Case Studies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Grade repetition</subfield><subfield code="z">New York (State)</subfield><subfield code="z">New York</subfield><subfield code="v">Case Studies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Schulpolitik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4053532-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">New York</subfield><subfield code="g">Staat</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4042012-7</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="655" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4143413-4</subfield><subfield code="a">Aufsatzsammlung</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd-content</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="655" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4522595-3</subfield><subfield code="a">Fallstudiensammlung</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd-content</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">New York</subfield><subfield code="g">Staat</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4042012-7</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Schulpolitik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4053532-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">McCombs, Jennifer Sloan</subfield><subfield code="d">1970-</subfield><subfield code="e">Sonstige</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)130156450</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung UB Erlangen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=018953072&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-018953072</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| genre | (DE-588)4143413-4 Aufsatzsammlung gnd-content (DE-588)4522595-3 Fallstudiensammlung gnd-content |
| genre_facet | Aufsatzsammlung Fallstudiensammlung |
| geographic | New York Staat (DE-588)4042012-7 gnd |
| geographic_facet | New York Staat |
| id | DE-604.BV036061604 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T22:10:36Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9780833047786 |
| language | English |
| lccn | 2009032280 |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-018953072 |
| oclc_num | 433549134 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-29 |
| owner_facet | DE-29 |
| physical | XXXIV, 273 S. Ill., graph. Darst. |
| publishDate | 2009 |
| publishDateSearch | 2009 |
| publishDateSort | 2009 |
| publisher | RAND |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | RAND Education |
| spelling | Ending social promotion without leaving children behind the case of New York City Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Sheila Nataraj Kirby and Louis T. Mariano, ed. Santa Monica, CA RAND 2009 XXXIV, 273 S. Ill., graph. Darst. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier RAND Education Includes bibliographical references Many states and school districts are implementing test-based requirements for promotion at key transitional points in students' schooling careers, thus ending the practice of "social promotion" - promoting students who have failed to meet academic standards and requirements for that grade. In 2003-2004, the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE), which oversees the largest public school system in the country, implemented a new test-based promotion policy for 3rd-grade students and later extended it to 5th, 7th, and 8th graders. The policy emphasized early identification of children at risk of being retained in grade and provision of instructional support services to these students. NYCDOE asked RAND to conduct an independent longitudinal evaluation of the 5th-grade promotion policy and to examine the outcomes for two cohorts of 3rd-grade students. The findings of that study, conducted between March 2006 and August 2009, provide a comprehensive picture of how the policy was implemented and factors affecting implementation; the impact of the policy on student academic and socioemotional outcomes; and the links between the policy's implementation and the outcomes of at-risk students. Two other publications in this series provide a review of the prevailing literature on retention and lessons learned about policy design from top-level administrators across the country. Promotion (School) New York (State) New York Case Studies Grade repetition New York (State) New York Case Studies Schulpolitik (DE-588)4053532-0 gnd rswk-swf New York Staat (DE-588)4042012-7 gnd rswk-swf (DE-588)4143413-4 Aufsatzsammlung gnd-content (DE-588)4522595-3 Fallstudiensammlung gnd-content New York Staat (DE-588)4042012-7 g Schulpolitik (DE-588)4053532-0 s DE-604 McCombs, Jennifer Sloan 1970- Sonstige (DE-588)130156450 oth Digitalisierung UB Erlangen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=018953072&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| spellingShingle | Ending social promotion without leaving children behind the case of New York City Promotion (School) New York (State) New York Case Studies Grade repetition New York (State) New York Case Studies Schulpolitik (DE-588)4053532-0 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4053532-0 (DE-588)4042012-7 (DE-588)4143413-4 (DE-588)4522595-3 |
| title | Ending social promotion without leaving children behind the case of New York City |
| title_auth | Ending social promotion without leaving children behind the case of New York City |
| title_exact_search | Ending social promotion without leaving children behind the case of New York City |
| title_full | Ending social promotion without leaving children behind the case of New York City Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Sheila Nataraj Kirby and Louis T. Mariano, ed. |
| title_fullStr | Ending social promotion without leaving children behind the case of New York City Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Sheila Nataraj Kirby and Louis T. Mariano, ed. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Ending social promotion without leaving children behind the case of New York City Jennifer Sloan McCombs, Sheila Nataraj Kirby and Louis T. Mariano, ed. |
| title_short | Ending social promotion without leaving children behind |
| title_sort | ending social promotion without leaving children behind the case of new york city |
| title_sub | the case of New York City |
| topic | Promotion (School) New York (State) New York Case Studies Grade repetition New York (State) New York Case Studies Schulpolitik (DE-588)4053532-0 gnd |
| topic_facet | Promotion (School) New York (State) New York Case Studies Grade repetition New York (State) New York Case Studies Schulpolitik New York Staat Aufsatzsammlung Fallstudiensammlung |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=018953072&sequence=000001&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mccombsjennifersloan endingsocialpromotionwithoutleavingchildrenbehindthecaseofnewyorkcity |