|
Blog: FCAR
Speakout
|
Support open, broad-based assessment of learning --
contribute to FCAR.
|
| |
FCAT-based Grade-3 Retention
Legislature Analysis Flawed
By Robert R. Lange, Ph.D.
Lake Mary, Florida
January 11, 2007
http://mmdnewswire.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1114
http://mmdnewswire.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1114&pop=1&page=0
There were serious flaws in the title, introduction, conclusions and summary of
the October, 2006 evaluation of the third grade retention policy produced by the
Florida Legislature’s Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government
Accountability (oppaga Report No. 06-66). The report included very good data and
informative graphics. It also provided ample evidence to conclude that the
auditors either failed to understand their data or were forced to deceive the
intended audiences. It is very clear that intensive reading instruction provided
to at-risk students was the primary cause of reading improvement scores and not
grade retention. Based on the data presented in the report, it is clear that
grade retention did little to improve student performance.
By Florida law, grade-3 students who scored at level-1 of the FCAT were required
to spend at least one extra year in grade-3 unless they met the criteria for at
least one of six categories for “good cause exemptions”. The law also required
that low achieving students were given intensive remedial instruction and other
research-based services designed to facilitate improved academic performance.
Persons familiar with research and program evaluation design will note the
obvious classical threat to the internal validity of the study’s conclusion.
Whenever two or more treatments or interventions occur at the same time,
especially with post hoc evaluation designs, researchers look for what they call
the history or simultaneous treatments effect. The question is: which treatment
might cause the observed findings?
Page 8 of the OPPAGA report revealed the true story. It stated: “The schools
also shifted resources to focus on improving third grade reading. The schools
that were more successful at raising the achievement of retained students were
more likely to exhibit a climate of high expectations and have stronger
instructional leadership than schools that were not as successful at remediating
retained students.” And “Six of the schools we visited were relatively
successful at remediating the retained students (i.e., retained students’ FCAT
scores rose above level 1 in the following year), while the other four schools
were relatively unsuccessful.”
There were many details in the report that merit review and discussion. For
example, some students who “failed” the FCAT scored much higher on alternative
assessments and performed well after being promoted with an exemption. Many
students with limited English proficiency who were exempted also performed well,
especially two years after the grade-3 test score problem. Although the FCAT has
relatively good technical characteristics, similar to all such tests, the
results point to the measurement error and invalidity for some students.
Students exempted because of disabilities or a history of learning difficulties,
as could be expected, performed less well in grade-4 and beyond. Persons with
any knowledge of and concern for special-education youth can attest to problems
caused by misuse of a single indicator for critical life-altering decisions.
Perhaps the most important details in the report made it clear that improved
student reading performance was related to the extent to which the schools
provided intensive remedial reading instruction. Schools that provided students
with intensive remedial reading instruction fitted to student needs produced
notably improved student performance. Schools that provided lower levels of
remedial instruction were less successful in producing improved student
performance.
Florida students have shown-up at the school door with wide ranges of prior
preparation for the tasks expected of them in K to grade–3 classrooms. As stated
in the OPPAGA report, the grade retention policy also resulted in marked
increases in the number of grade retentions prior to the third grade. That
practice, in part, accounts for the recent increase in the average reading
scores of grade three students. There was no data on the extent to which low
performing students were provided intensive reading instruction prior to
grade-3.
Students can be provided intensive reading instruction at any grade level. They
don’t need to be retained for the proper instruction to be effective. Both grade
retention and increased long-term intensive reading remedial instruction are
expensive.
Florida legislators should take a long look at where and how they spend valued
education dollars. Each year, Florida spends well over $700 million dollars on
grade retention for K to grade-8 students. That fiscal resource could be better
used for reduced class size and intensive remedial instruction designed to fit
student learning needs.
What ought be done?
The 2002 law and subsequent modifications should be changed to focus on what
really helps students improve. That is:
1. remove mandated grade-three retention from the law,
2. discourage K to grade-2 retentions,
3. increase the mandates for researched-based small-group remedial
instruction at all levels K to grade-8.
Robert R. Lange, Ph.D.
Retired Prof. of Educational Research, Program Evaluation and Data Analysis
email: lange@mail.ucf.edu
qida@bellsouth.net
|
