As school districts across the nation are forced to be more accountable for student achievement, the issue of whether retaining students at any level, but more specifically the middle school level, must be addressed. Diane Johnson discusses five strategies she believes are necessary to help students succeed and reduce the retention rates in American schools. Research indicates the rate of retention is approximately 15 percent each year and is highest amongst poor, minority, inner-city youth. Research also indicates that both children who are retained for not meeting grade-level standards or socially promoted even though they have not mastered grade-level material are at increased risk of dropping out (Johnson, 2001). Johnson suggests intensifying learning through rich curriculum and authentic instruction, providing high-quality professional development, expanding learning options via block scheduling, year round schooling or looping teachers, using assessments to inform teachers and guide instruction, and implementing early intervention services.
Although Johnson’s suggestions are beneficial to breaking the cycle of retention and social promotion, there are other options that have proven to be effective in reducing retention rates, especially at the middle school level (Wells, 1989). Many of the suggestions made by Wells were implemented, not only in classroom scheduling and management, but also in design at Carroll Middle School when it was opened in 1998. Research conducted by the Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools in 1998 discovered that middle schools designed with the concept of smaller schools housed within one larger school created a more caring and nurturing environment necessary for students already facing the pressure and stress of adolescence (Wells, 1989). Carroll Middle School was designed with the middle school concept in mind; each of the three grade levels occupies their own “pod” with only a few areas designated for the use of all grade levels. The use of “pods” allows for increased personal attention necessary at such a critical time in development. Teachers within each pod team-teach and act as mentors to the students. As the students advance through each grade, the level of self-containment lessens. In 6th grade, students are primarily self-contained, switching teachers for one or two core classes. In 7th grade, students travel with a common group of students through each class. In other words, although the teacher for each class may be different, the students in each class remain the same. Finally, in 8th grade, the students are randomly scheduled with different students in each of their core classes. Not only has the building design impacted the retention rate at the middle school level, but the use of specific scheduling constraints that allow teachers in each grade level to have a common planning time, increased collaborative learning activities, and the use of STAR, or advisory program, have also played a significant role in reducing the number of students retained at the middle school level.
After reviewing data from the 14 years I have been employed at Carroll Middle School, I discovered that only four students had been retained in that time period: one student dropped out of high school as a sophomore, one transferred out of the district and later dropped out, and two are still enrolled in high school but receive at-risk services. The overall conclusion is that retention is not ideal at any age, but especially not at the middle school level. At such a critical age, retention not only increases the likelihood of not completing high school, but also negatively affects the student socially, emotionally and psychologically.
Johnson, D. (2001). Beyond social promotion and retention: five strategies to help students succeed. Retrieved from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at800.htm
Wells, A. S. (1998). Middle school education--the critical link in dropout prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9213/middle.htm
Although I am sure the design of Carroll Middle School and the hard work of teachers and students has kept our drop out/retention rate extremely low, I would like to know how surrounding school districts compare. Specifically, districts of similar size and make up as Carroll Middle School. My initial reaction is that the low drop/retention rate has more to do with educational philosophy of the district. You stated retaining middle school students negatively effects them socially, emotionally, and psychologically. But is the school responsible for students' social, emotional, and psychological health? Or is the school responsible for teaching students academics?
ReplyDeleteRetention is something that I go back and forth on. Everything in my head tells me it does not work for the student academically, emotionally, and socially. However, then I think about social promotion and how it affects students. Social promotion is one of the worst things that we deal with at the HS level as the students who come to us sometimes do not even know the basics. I was at an ACT meeting earlier this year and it was stated by ACT that students should know all the skills they need to know by the end of the 8th grade. They should not have to learn any new skills in high school they should only work on applying the skills that they have been taught in subject areas that will pretain to their possible field of study. If the students do not have these skills they will fall behind and ultimately will not end of graduating. On the other hand we also no that the longer a student is in school the better chance the student will drop out of school. So what does one do?
ReplyDeleteThe other side of the coin also puzzles me and that is acceleration. Is accelerating kids a good thing also. We have 5 students who want to take a High School English Class next year who are 8th graders. This really isn't a problem academically but might become a problem socially for these students. We have students who have skipped entire years of school that end up dropping out because the socialization process is just as important as the academic issues. .................
I am not an advocate of retention at the middle school level. This last school year, we started the school year with an 8th grade special education student who had been retained because of his failure to meet the academic standards. He simply had no desire to apply himself, mostly because he struggled with the material, so he shut down completely. The student had absolutely no behavioral issues, but would skip school on occasion. The joint decision between his parents and teachers was to retain him. I completely disagreed with this decision, but being the peon on the totem pole, my vote did not count. My opinion was that it ws obvious the material was too difficult for him. I truly believed that he would have thrived if given the time and attention he needed. He was a true example of why inclusion does not always work for the special education student. At the beginning of this school year, he continued to struggle, even after attending summer school in June and August. At wit's end and believing he was not going to advance, the decision was made to promote him to the 9th grade at the end of the first quarter if he did not have any late or missing assignments, regardless of whether they were satisfactory or not. When he was enrolled at the high school during second quarter, his IEP was amended and most of his classes were conducted in a pull-out setting. He has since thrived.
ReplyDeleteRetaining students at the middle school level affects students more psychologically and socially than at any other age. For this reason, the better solution would be to retain students at the elementary level and only if necessary. As students with special needs are being immersed into the regular education classroom, educators are consistently learning techniques and strategies to differentiate instruction to ensure that all students can take away valuable information from the lesson. Because of this, there is absolutely no reason that students should not be meeting grade level standards.
As for acceleration, I can't say I have developed a position for or against it. Our district does offer and accelerated math program. This will be the fourth year that we will have incoming 6th graders take 7th grade math and at leas the tenth year that we have had 8th graders take Geometry at our high school. In the 14 years I have been employed in the district, I have only witnessed one of the students not do well in the program. Additionally, I have only encountered one student who has skipped an entire grade level. This particular student was a home-schooled student who moved into our district as a high school student. Which then leads to the question about early graduation? If a student chooses to graduate at the end of his junior year or at semester of his senior year, does that create a disadvantage to him when he enters college at an earlier age than most students entering college for the first time?
Thetia,
ReplyDeleteI did my homework, determined to find some sort of link between a demographic factor and district drop out rates. I found 25 districts of comparable size (700-993 7-12 students), with CCSD ranking 12th with a 7-12 enrollment of 848 students in 2010. Our dropout rate for 2010 was 1.4%. The district with the lowest rate was 0.12% and the highest had 4% (Iowa Department of Education, 2011). Given the list of comparable districts, I decided to analyze the demographic makeup of each district, thinking maybe there was a relationship between household education and possibly poverty level. This analysis brought no valid indicators, as the poverty level of the districts with the highest dropout rates ranged from 4% to 14% (Proximity, 2011).
The analysis leads me to agree with you that school philosophy most likely is a determining factor in whether students complete school or not. Additionally, it is my thought that parent and community involvement in the education of our youth play a significant role in student success. After reviewing the 12 dropouts that CCSD had in 2010 and understanding the community philsophy of education and the household factors of these students, it may be accurate to say that my hypothesis may be valid.
Iowa Department of Education. (2011). 2010 dropout rates by district. Retrieved from http://iowa.gov/educate/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=516&Itemid=55
Proximity. (2011). Iowa school district demographics. Retrieved from http://proximityone.com/sd_ia.htm