Home | About | Publications | Special Topics | Presentations | State Policies | Accommodations Bibliography | Teleconferences | Tools | Related Sites

Social Promotion and Students with Disabilities: Issues and Challenges in Developing State Policies

NCEO Synthesis Report 34

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

Prepared by:

Rachel F. Quenemoen • Camilla A. Lehr • Martha L. Thurlow • Sandra J. Thompson • Sara Bolt

June 2000

Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Quenemoen, R. F., Lehr, C. A., Thurlow, M. L., Thompson, S. J., & Bolt, S. (2000). Social promotion and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges in developing state policies (Synthesis Report No. 34). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis34.html

Within the context of current educational reform, the move to end social promotion is receiving increasing attention. Questions about the practice of moving students to the next grade even if they do not have required skills are being addressed at the federal level, and in growing numbers of states and school districts.

This policy study looks at existing and emerging state policies on social promotion to determine the extent to which students with disabilities are included or excluded. Results reflect the status of state policies at one point in time, as determined from publicly available state documents and statutes. The review is meant to contribute to thoughtful policy development and stimulate consideration of issues associated with high stakes testing to assess accountability for students with and without disabilities.

Starting from AFT’s identification of 14 states that have or will have promotion policies, we examined (1) policies in general, (2) promotion criteria and interventions, and (3) how students with disabilities are addressed in policies and interventions. School improvement plans and funding also were examined. Our analysis showed that policies varied considerably in terms of the bases for promotion decisions (e.g., content, grade level), but that all states used test performance as the primary basis for decisions. Although many interventions were identified for student performance remediation, most states relied on summer school, extended day, or after school programs.

All of the 14 states with existing or emerging promotion polices referred to students with disabilities in their policies. However, the application of promotion criteria to students with disabilities was minimal or not clearly stated in many states. The IEP typically plays a role in how individual decisions are made for students with disabilities, but the specific role varies widely among states. Our analysis revealed that it is difficult to determine intervention options for students with disabilities from public state documents. Eight states with policies to end social promotion included specific guidelines about interventions for students with disabilities, yet these state guidelines varied widely.

Implementation of policies and practices designed to stop social promotion will require continuous monitoring of student outcomes, especially in states and districts implementing high stakes testing for systems and for students. It is critical to begin open and continuous discussion among all stakeholders on the impact of policies like those examined in this report. Several issues and challenges will have to be addressed in these discussions, including:

• Confusion about the best approach to reduce social promotion, without incurring negative consequences such as increased dropout rates.

• Use of assessments designed primarily to measure progress of schools and districts for the purpose of making decisions about individual students.

• Lack of coordination of school reform components (e.g., IDEA 97 and promotion policies).

• Limited information on efforts regarding interventions, particularly as they apply to students with disabilities.

• Funding considerations that may limit the application of interventions to students with disabilities.

Social and Political Context of Social Promotion

We expect our public schools to produce results. We expect fourth graders to work at least at the fourth grade level, eighth graders to work at least at the eighth grade, and high school graduates to have mastered the high school curriculum. What do we do when students have not reached expected levels? This question is being addressed in an increasing number of states and school districts by policies to “end social promotion.” Do our expectations and our strategies for addressing the question vary depending on “who” the student is?

Over the past 150 years, the pendulum has swung between two policy directions for students in our public schools who do not attain grade level skills—repeating a grade (retention) vs. advancing to the next grade based on age and social criteria rather than on academic achievement (social promotion) (Parelius & Parelius, 1987). Social and economic pressures have influenced the policy swings as much as educational practice and research, but by the end of the 20th century, educators had come to realize that the social promotion vs. retention dichotomy is not very helpful. Consensus has emerged that the alternative to retention is not social promotion, but a host of other interventions and alternatives (Riley, Smith, & Peterson, 1999).

During the 1980s and 90s, educators struggled to define more appropriate interventions and alternatives. By 1996, Sizer summarized new thinking among educators: “the new assumption, which has emerged in the past fifteen years, is that if a kid does not get it in the usual way, the school should try to help him get it in another way. Everybody has to get it. No one can be sorted out” (Sizer, 1996, p. 35).

This shift in thinking has occurred in the political realm as well. By the mid to late 1990s, business and political leaders grappled with a labor shortage and a perception that schools must prepare the workforce with higher level skills. There has been new economic rationale to ensure that all students learn to high standards, and new impetus to improve the quality of curriculum and instruction. The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 introduced new public school accountability mandates, and specified that all students be included in the measurement of progress toward standards. Building on that base, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 and other reform measures (e.g., School-to-Work Opportunities Act, Carl Perkins) emphasize high standards for all students, with inclusive accountability measures. These accountability measures require new and higher expectations for learning at the system, school, and student levels.

From that mandated base, leaders in both major political parties agree on one key piece—social promotion, the practice of moving students to the next grade even if they do not have required skills, must end. The language of the two parties sounds remarkably similar, and shows recognition of the reality that social promotion and retention are not the only two alternatives at hand. In 1998, President Clinton declared, “... 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” (as cited in Riley, Smith, & Peterson, 1999). Republican presidential candidate Texas Governor George W. Bush proposed legislation for his home state that sets a standard of requiring students to pass the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) in third, fifth, and eighth grades in order to be promoted. Governor Bush says, “this plan is designed to use the TAAS as an early warning device to get students help early, when it’s most effective” (Fikac, 1999). In that context, state lawmakers have initiated social promotion legislation to address how to end social promotion, and have linked these policies to standards-based reform efforts in their states.

Current Educational Reform Issues Surrounding Social Promotion

Almost all states have established educational content and performance standards for all students. Student progress toward these standards is being measured using large-scale assessments (Olson, Bond, & Andrews, 1999; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Gutman, & Geenan, 1998). Federal legislation (e.g., IASA, IDEA, Goals 2000) clearly states that goals and standards must be developed for all students, and that standards for students receiving general education and special education services must be consistent to the maximum extent possible. In addition, all students, including students with disabilities, must participate in state and district-wide assessments with appropriate accommodations when necessary. Social promotion must be considered in conjunction with current national education reforms to establish high standards and to measure state, district, and student achievement using formal assessment systems.

Other legislated improvement efforts also relate to social promotion efforts. Goals 2000 requirements state that the graduation rate must be increased to 90% by the year 2000 (National Education Goals Panel, 1995). Recent statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics (1997) indicate that 85% of all 18-24 year olds who were not still enrolled had completed a high school program. This statistic does not reflect the uneven distribution of dropout rates across various populations. For example, the graduation rate for white students is 91%, but it is only 83% for African American students and 62% for Hispanic students (NCES, 1997). Students with disabilities have higher rates of dropout than students without disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Moreover, students with emotional and behavioral disorders are at highest risk for dropping out compared with students in other disability categories (Kortering & Blackorby, 1992; Marder & D’Amico, 1992; Wagner, 1995; Wolman, Bruininks, & Thurlow, 1989). A critical question to be answered is: How will policies advocating no more social promotion affect these students who are most at risk of not completing school?

This question leads to a review of civil rights issues emerging as school reform is being implemented. Over the last half of the 20th century, progress has been made in ensuring equal access to a quality education for many targeted populations of students, such as students of color, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, and even females as a group. This discussion has been characterized by continual tension between equity and excellence, equality and quality.

Recent work linking educational reform practice with legal issues, specifically civil rights issues, addresses that tension. Legal focus in the 1990s has been on the right of all students to have both opportunity and success in educational settings. Arthur L. Coleman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, concluded, based on case law that “the goals of guaranteeing excellence through the promotion of high academic standards and ensuring that all students have fair opportunities to achieve success in public education are inseparable, mutually dependent goals” (1998, p. 85). Coleman makes it clear that the legal expectation is NOT that results will be equal. Instead, each child should have an equal opportunity to achieve high academic standards, as measured by appropriate assessment processes. In that context, students must be given a fair opportunity to succeed on any high stakes assessment process, not a guarantee they will succeed. Unequal test scores do not necessarily point to inequities. Integrity of the test or decision process becomes the proof of fairness, indicated by careful alignment of standards, curriculum and instruction, assessment, and opportunity for intervention as the student works toward the high stakes assessment.

Case law reinforces these indicators as the required evidence about the integrity of the test or decision process. The court has refused to intervene on school policies that have clear performance standards based on test scores, if they provide for remedial options for students at risk of failing, and some flexibility of administration and decision-making based on student need; but they also have questioned quality school improvement programs with high stakes that are administered without adequate preparatory time for students (Coleman, 1998). The court looks for direct or indirect evidence of appropriate alignment across standards, opportunities to learn, and assessment, and for evidence of remedial efforts that are available for students at risk of failing.

The expectation of a diploma is considered to be a property right under constitutional protection; denial of promotion or graduation at a particular time is not (Coleman, 1998). Ultimately it may be that the legal issue comes at the point of graduation or diploma stakes, not on promotion decisions; but a record of interventions built into promotion decisions can make the withholding of diplomas defensible.

Implementation of the laws and regulations requiring both high standards and equity sometimes results in unintended outcomes of exclusion or denial of services to some subgroups, such as minority populations with well-documented performance gaps and students with disabilities. The use of high stakes testing to assess student accountability and make decisions about promotion or graduation can contribute to those unintended and undesired outcomes for individuals. Alternatively, high stakes testing, aligned to high standards and access to the general education curriculum, can be used to identify where systematic unequal educational opportunity exists, and lead to interventions on the quality of the opportunities for all students, at both the system and individual levels.

Policies related to high standards, accountability, and decisions about social promotion can lead to either of these two alternatives. Looking at the research base on the consequences of social promotion and retention may help us understand policy options that will lead to the best outcomes for all students.

Research on Consequences of Social Promotion and Retention Policies

The research base on both social promotion and retention is of varying quality, and we have very few studies examining changes in the curriculum or instruction that students receive before and after retention. The majority of studies on retention document its ineffectiveness as an intervention aimed at improving achievement levels for students who are already struggling. Studies on social promotion are hampered by limited documentation of the number or percentage of students who are socially promoted, and the difficulty of identifying them.

Retention is the most common and immediate consequence for students who have not mastered grade level material (Shepard, 1991). Estimates suggest that about 2.4 million students are retained each year (Shepard & Smith, 1989), costing approximately 14 billion dollars annually (roughly $6,000 per student). Research on retention reinforces evidence of varying impact on racial and economic groups, finding that students who are more likely to be retained tend to be male, African American or Hispanic, of low socio-economic standing, and have parents who dropped out of school (Alexander, Entwisle & Dauber, 1995).

Some researchers investigating the effects of non promotion fear that it will increase the dropout rate (Sperry, 1996). Repeating a grade has been linked with an increased risk of dropping out of school (Cairns, Cairns, & Neckerman, 1989; Grissom & Shepard, 1989). For the individual student who drops out, negative outcomes include low income and lifetime earnings, high unemployment rates, involvement in the criminal system, and limited cognitive growth (Policy Information Center, 1995). The damaging effects of dropping out are also felt by society. In fact, the estimated costs attributed to dropouts in terms of lost revenues, welfare and unemployment, and crime prevention and prosecution have been estimated to be in the billions of dollars, translating to about $800 annually per taxpayer (Joint Economic Committee, 1991). The costs of dropping out of school are even more pronounced for students with disabilities (Marder & D’Amico, 1992). Ramifications of a policy that may increase the rate of dropouts among at-risk populations must be carefully considered and examined, and alternative interventions be considered.

Several large urban districts have implemented social promotion policies in the past few years. The effort in Chicago has shown mixed results in student performance, and has generated heated and vigorous discussion based on competing interpretations of these early data (Moore, 1999; Roderick, Bryk, Jacob, Easton, & Allensworth, 1999). Although gains in numbers of students achieving standards were shown as a result of some interventions, especially for older students, the progress was not maintained over time (Roderick et al., 1999). The policy appears to be disproportionately affecting minority students, with African American students 4.5 times more likely to be retained than white students, and Hispanic students retained 3 times as often as white students (Moore, 1999, p. 3). Large numbers of students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency were excluded from the initial evaluation study (Viadero, 2000).

Purpose of This Study

This policy study looks at existing and emerging state policies on social promotion in 14 states to determine how and the extent to which students with disabilities are included or excluded. This is a “one point in time” snapshot of state policies that change almost weekly, and is based on publicly available information as of December 1999. It builds on the American Federation of Teachers 1999 study of the 14 states that “have or will have a promotion policy” (AFT, 1999, p. 8), and is meant to contribute to continuing policy development and refinement in these states and others.

If students are excluded from social promotion policies and interventions, it may suggest that they are not being held to the same standards as other students, and they may be excluded from participating in educational programs that are developed as a result of the policy. It is hoped that this study will contribute to policy development that will address the rights of all students to have high expectations for learning to standards, access to the general education curriculum aligned to the standards, and varied and multiple interventions so that they all have the opportunity to succeed.

Method

For the purpose of this report, we used information collected by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) to identify states that have or will have social promotion policies. In its report entitled Making Standards Matter (1999), 14 states with social promotion policies in place or in process were identified (see Table 1).

Table 1. States that Have or Will Have Promotion Policies (AFT, 1999)

Although other states may have social promotion policies at varying stages of development, we elected to build on the 14 states identified in the AFT research as an already identified sample. We compiled documents from each of these 14 states and examined them to answer two questions:

•     What are the key components of social promotion policies?

•     To what extent do social promotion policies address students with disabilities?

To answer these questions, information was gathered from public state documents available or referenced through state education department Web sites on or before December 31, 1999. Many states with social promotion policies had information that was easily accessible on their Web sites, while others did not make reference to social promotion. In all cases, legislative statutes mentioning the social promotion policy were collected. It is probable that some states have developed additional supporting material since this review was conducted. Furthermore, variability across Web sites may have reflected different levels of implementation.

Collected documents included state statutes, public reports, policy memos, and guidelines. We examined each document and generated several categories for organizing the information through discussion and consensus. Next, through a process of data reduction, information was summarized and grouped into categories illustrating: the criteria used to determine whether students are promoted, the extent to which students with disabilities are addressed, and the extent to which student interventions and school improvement plans (linked to social promotion policies) are in place. In addition, documents were examined to determine whether funding was specifically mentioned in relation to instituting social promotion policies. Summary sheets for each state were developed and, in some cases, language was inserted that was taken directly from the public documents. The sources used are included in each state’s summary sheet (see Appendix A).

After the state summary sheets were developed, we identified similarities and patterns across states. Summary statements were generated from the patterns that emerged. These are listed in the Results section, by category of statement. All information was reexamined and verified by NCEO staff for accuracy against the December 1999 data sample.

Results

The results of our policy analysis reflect the status of emerging state policies at one point in time, as determined from publicly available state documents and statutes. Within these emerging policies, states put varying emphasis on the methods of ending social promotion, including student retention, retention with interventions or support, and promotion with interventions and support. States may use the same grade levels, subjects, and criteria to determine student performance against standards, but somewhat different outcomes may result from the states’ varying emphasis on (1) retention, (2) retention with interventions and supports, and (3) promotion with intervention and supports. At this point in time, policies do not always define this variability clearly. Thus, the tables do not differentiate among these three strategies, and for the purposes of this paper, we include all three equally as policy decisions to “end social promotion.”

Grade Levels and Subjects

Table 2 lists the grade levels and the subject areas in which students are assessed in order to make promotion decisions. We generated several summary statements based on the information found in the public state documents:

•  Promotion decisions are made on the basis of test performance in a variety of subject areas. The 14 states that have policies for ending social promotion base decisions on student performance in math, reading, writing, science, or social studies (social studies may include citizenship, history, social science, and geography).

•     Reading and math are the most common subject areas on which promotion decisions are based.

•  Promotion decisions are made at a variety of grade levels. Of the 14 states that have social promotion policies, grade levels ranged from K to 11.

•  Assessment to determine promotion occurs most often in grades 3, 4, 5, and 8.

Although most states note the subject area assessed and grade level used to determine promotion, some states do not clearly specify one or the other or both. In one state, we could not determine, from the documents that were publicly available, which grade levels or subject areas would be assessed to determine promotion decisions. It is possible that lack of clear and easily accessible information may reflect policies that are relatively new or in the process of development.

Table 2. States Targeting Grade and Subject Area for Promotion Decisions

Note:  The information in this table is based on policies available in December, 1999.  Some of the policies at that time were in proposed state policies while others were in policies already in place.
CA: English/Language Arts has been included in the category labeled "writing." Decision making occurs between "intermediate and middle" school and between "middle and high school."  For this chart, CA has been counted in grade 5 and grade 8. Florida will add testing in science in grade 2003. Testing occurs in grades 1-3 but promotion decisions are made in grade 4. Remediation may occur in primary grades and data from earlier grades may be used in decision-making in grade 4.
IL: Districts can ask for optional reading inventories to provide appropriate remediation in primary grades.
OH:Testing occurs in reading during grades 1-3, but promotion decisions are made in grade 4.
TX: School districts may opt to require students in grades K-8 who are not likely to be promoted to attend an extended year program to be eligible for promotion.
VA:  Diagnosis of reading deficiency and intervention provided in grades K-1
WI: Remedial reading service for pupils in grades K-4 who fail to meet reading objectives or fail to pass reading assessment.

Criteria

Table 3 lists various criteria that are considered in making promotion decisions. It is not clear from examining public state documents whether these criteria are the same for students with and without disabilities.

From the information summarized in Table 3, we generated several statements:

•  Performance on statewide (n=13) or local assessments (n=3, 2 of which also use statewide assessment performance) is used by all 14 states to make decisions about promotion.

•     For states that are developing policies ending social promotion, a variety of criteria are used when considering promotion decisions. The most frequently considered criteria are statewide assessment scores, teacher input, grades or school credits, and attendance at summer school/extended year programs.

•     Other criteria that are considered include principal input, parent input, classroom evidence of performance, attendance, committee review, other local assessment or standardized test scores, or student request.

Most states use more than one type of criteria to make promotion decisions. For example, in some states, statewide assessment scores are the primary means of determining promotion status, but parent or principal input also plays a role in the final decision about whether a student is promoted. In California, local school boards can choose not to use the state assessment scores as criteria for making promotion decisions, and may instead rely on other indicators such as grades. Nevada also relies on local policy for determining how promotion decisions are made. Local school boards must set a minimum number of credits students must accumulate, but this number may vary across the state. Nevada also places authority to retain a pupil in the hands of the child’s teacher and principal: “the pupil’s teacher and principal in joint agreement have the final authority to retain a pupil in the same grade for the succeeding school year.” In some states students at risk of retention can attend summer school or an extended year program to make up credits or increase skills in order to be promoted the next school year.

Table 3. Criteria Considered in Making Promotion Decisions

Note:  The information in this table is based on policies available in December, 1999.  Some of the policies at that time were in proposed state policies while others were in policies already in place.
CA: Local school boards set their own policy; the state provides samples or models of policy. Suggestions for research and practice to help make promotion decisions and plan interventions are available on CA Web site, along with links to other Web sites from organizations that can assist in the process.

Five states have promotion policies that specify limits on how long or how many times a student may be retained (Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Nevada). These limits vary across states. The District of Columbia and Louisiana limit the number of times a student can be retained based on a student’s age. For example, in Louisiana, a fourth grade student who is 12 years old on or before September 30 must be placed in an alternative setting or program if he/she fails to score above “unsatisfactory,” as opposed to being retained with younger fourth graders. Delaware and Florida allow a student to be retained for no more than two years. Florida also stipulates that if a student is retained, “it must be in a program different from the previous year’s program.” Nevada law states that no pupil can be retained more than one time in the same grade. Other states allow districts to decide how long a student may be retained.

Criteria for Students with Disabilities

All of the 14 states with emerging promotion policies refer to students with disabilities; however, application of promotion criteria to students with disabilities is minimal or not clearly stated in many states. According to many state policies, the IEP plays a role in how individual decisions for students with disabilities are made. These roles vary among states:

•     For many states, the IEP plays a role in determining how the student will participate in statewide assessments that are part of the criteria for promotion decisions (through regular assessment, alternate assessment, assessment with accommodations, etc.). This is the case for Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.

•  According to some state policies, students with disabilities must meet the same criteria for promotion as students without disabilities unless the IEP stipulates otherwise (California, South Carolina).

•     In other policies, promotion for students with disabilities is simply based on whether the student meets IEP goals (District of Columbia, Nevada).

•     In one state, it appears that students with disabilities can be exempted from taking the test involved in promotion decisions by an IEP decision (Ohio). In another (Virginia), passing literacy tests is not required for students with disabilities to enter ninth grade if they are progressing on objectives of their IEP or 504 plan. The literacy test is required for students without disabilities. However, passing of the Standards of Learning (SOL) tests is required of students with disabilities unless the IEP allows them to demonstrate proficiency on alternate assessment.

These states may have additional procedures clarifying these exemptions in their special education laws, rules, or regulations, but the linkages were not specifically addressed in public social promotion policy documents available as of December 1999.

Although reference to students with disabilities was evident in most state promotion policies, only two states provided specific information about promotion decisions for students with disabilities. For example, California policy documents include specific questions that must be addressed by the IEP team to determine whether a student with disabilities may be retained. These questions relate to whether the IEP and manner of assessment were appropriate, and whether appropriate services were offered and provided to the student. Louisiana notes that criteria for promotion decisions for students with disabilities must take into account student attendance, completion of IEP goals, transition planning, and the use of an alternate assessment if necessary.

States vary widely in the ways that the IEP is used to assist in making social promotion decisions. In South Carolina, students with disabilities are subject to general education social promotion criteria unless the IEP defines goals and promotion standards that differ from the general education goals and standards. In Ohio, students with disabilities may be excused from taking the assessment (on which promotion decisions are based) if the IEP specifies accordingly. In the District of Columbia and Nevada, students with disabilities may be promoted if they are meeting the goals stated on their IEPs. In North Carolina, students with disabilities may be exempted from statewide student accountability promotion standards by the IEP team if the team determines that the students do not have the ability to participate in the state standard course of study. Other states such as Texas use a local committee to make decisions about promotion/retention for students receiving special education services. In Florida, its policy states that the state board rules are to address the promotion of students with disabilities, and in Delaware, it states that “the Department is to develop regulations to address how to implement the standards with students with disabilities.”

Student Interventions