GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

shooting blind

Social promotion’s effect in New York City still largely unknown

Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to expand a social promotion ban will likely be the first item on the school board’s agenda when they reconvene. But board members will have to vote on the proposal before the results of the only research on the effects of holding back failing students in the city have been released.

The results of a study that the city commissioned from the research institute the RAND Corporation in 2004 are scheduled to be released this fall, according to Department of Education spokesman Andy Jacob. But that will almost certainly come after the Panel for Educational Policy votes on the proposed expansion of Bloomberg’s new promotional standards to include fourth and sixth graders.

(The Panel for Educational Policy was dissolved after mayoral control expired June 30 but will reconvene now that the Senate has re-authorized the law.)

Data provided by the New York City Department of Education

Less than two percent of third, fifth and seventh graders were held back last year under Mayor Bloomberg's tougher promotion standards. Data provided by the New York City Department of Education.

Preliminary results of the RAND study, which looks at the performance of third and fifth graders affected by the Mayor’s promotion policy over time and will include data from the 2008-2009 school year, were delivered to the Department of Education last year, Jacob said. The study was designed to follow students for five years, Jacob said, and so final results of the study will not be available until the research is completed.

The RAND Corporation did release a working paper in 2006 that surveyed promotion and retention policies around the United States and placed New York City’s practices in context.

Even without research findings on the end of social promotion in New York City, Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein insist that holding back failing schoolchildren benefits them unquestionably.

“It’s pretty hard to argue that [ending social promotion] does not work,” Bloomberg said today as he called for the policy to be expanded to include all tested grades. “Sending kids into the next grade unprepared is as mean and cruel a thing as you can do,” he said.

But the success of tougher promotion standards is still hotly debated among researchers. One issue skeptics raise is whether it makes sense to tout a policy that only holds back a small section of students who have failed state math and English exams.

Last year, more than 98 percent of third, fifth and seventh graders were promoted by scoring a Level 2 or higher on their state exams either during the school year or after summer school, or on appeal. The charts above and below show the number of third,fifth and seventh grade students who were promoted, either by scoring high enough on state exams during the school year or after summer school. Promotion data for 2009 has not yet been released.

Under the city’s promotion policies, students who score at least a Level 2 out of 4 on their math and English exams are promoted, even though students at that score do not yet meet state standards.

Bloomberg said that low bar for promotion doesn’t mean the policy doesn’t work.  Holding back still-failing Level 2 students is an eventual goal but one that is currently logistically difficult, he said.

“If we went immediately to Level 3, so many kids would be held back that we’d be overwhelmed,” he said.

Data provided by the New York City Department of Education

Data provided by the New York City Department of Education

Data provided by the New York City Department of Education

Data provided by the New York City Department of Education

  • http://www.classsizematters.org Leonie Haimson

    The PEP should not vote on this policy until the RAND findings are released to the public.

  • Smith

    We shouldn’t refer to a ban on social promotion if one doesn’t exist. When I taught seventh grade all the students who failed all their classes were passed on to eighth grade because they received “2′s” on the state ELA test. But here’s my question: In this case the AP said the school had the choice whether or not to pass the 2′s but had to pass the kid with a 3. Is this correct? Our kids were passed because the school wanted to get rid of them as soon as possible. That’s social promotion just as it existed before Bloomberg.

  • http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2009/02/testimony-on-mayoral-control-for.html Patrick J. Sullivan

    When we voted on the 8th grade retention policy last year they said the release date for the RAND study was August 2009. Now it is “sometime this fall”. Would that happen to be “sometime after the election this fall?” What are they hiding?

  • Elizabeth Green

    Thanks for that reminder Patrick. When did they say August 2009? I checked my story from that time and just saw 2009 – http://www.nysun.com/new-york/bronx-manhattan-presidents-back-social-promotion/73005/

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-356-SF-Education-Examiner Caroline

    I observed a long delay in the release of a RAND study on another education issue I was following closely — that one was Edison Schools, the once-hailed, now-discredited, NYC-based for-profit school management company. An insider told me the delay (at least two years) was due to protracted negotiations over the final version of the study, which showed the usual lame “mixed results” for Edison. Edison had paid for the study. While I trust RAND’s integrity (disclosure that a relative is a researcher for RAND, though not in education), draw your own conclusions.

  • http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com Patrick J. Sullivan

    The briefing document distributed to Panel members on the policy said August 2009.

  • Michael M.

    Re ““If we went immediately to Level 3, so many kids would be held back that we’d be overwhelmed,” he [Bloomberg] said.”

    Suggested correction: “If we went immediately to Level 3, so many kids would be held back that people would question my success as the ‘Education Mayor.’”

    Much more better.

  • Michael M.

    Too much stick, not enough carrot. Why not just lay on some more “DOE irony-alert” and call it a “War on Stupidity?”

    No, Mr. Mayor, what’s “mean and cruel” is holding back Level 1 kids with NO PLAN WHATSOEVER to raise them to a Level THREE.

    “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
    – Albert Einstein

  • Dissenter

    Patrick would you prefer an accurate and thorough study or one that is released when it’s complete? I’m sure that you would not want such a long range study released just to make a date as opposed to being released by RAND because it is ready to be released. Why is your approach to things always a conspiratorial (and paranoid) one, always assuming the worst? For someone who represents all of Manhattan school parents, I find this very troubling.

  • Michael M.

    Patrick,
    Allow me…

    Dissenter,
    Please note the RAND study was originally slated for release in August. It’s not at all unreasonable to ponder the reasons for the delay. Sheesh.

    Wouldn’t you want a fully informed electorate PRIOR to the election?

    P.S. Ya might want to rework that opening either-or, so it’s not either-either.

  • Ellen McHugh

    Nah, how about this….you tell your boss you will have something to him, then you tell your boss you won’t, then you tell your boss it’s coming,then you tellyour boss it’s really coming, then your boss tells you, put up or go home.
    That’s how it works in the business world, why can’t we make education more like the business world (with apologies to Lerner and Lowe’s My Fair Lady, Why Can’t a Woman be More Like a Man?)

  • Michael M.

    More like… “I’m Getting Annointed in November.”

  • http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com Patrick J. Sullivan

    I’ve read all the interim reports published over the last three years. Many individual parts of the study, such as surveys of principals to understand the policy, have been completed for years. It makes no sense to continue to suppress these studies.

    As for the longitudinal study, the DOE said August 2009, RAND said August 2009 and the DOE again admitted they had received the results a few months ago. If it’s not ready (which I doubt), then get it finished so we can learn what is working or not, then fix the policy before extending it. Simple enough.

  • http://www.classsizematters.org Leonie Haimson

    not surprisingly, one of the items the DOE cut in their recent budget were the planned new round of surveys of school staff re grade retention — to be included in the RAND report.

  • Smith

    We seem to refer only to elementary and junior high students when we use the term “social promotion”. Is there a different term for when you work in one of the new small schools and you have to give a failing kid a 65 in order to avoid becoming a target?

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Follow GothamSchools

RSS

Recently Posted Jobs

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

0 comments so far today

Events Calendar

Our Twitter Updates

  • Several readers have asked us to change our site so that external links open in a new browser tab. Anyone disagree? Anyone agree? 12 hrs ago
  • 12 NYC schools on @Newsweek's list of best 1,000 American high schools (not the same as last week's list): http://t.co/1tqx9o2C 13 hrs ago
  • Dennis Walcott runs, sings in a church choir, and makes the week's meals on Sundays: "I can do everything except sew." http://t.co/vVOBRp5G 17 hrs ago
  • @JBrownDPost: surprised to see that federal gov. doesn't have a way of deciding "what worked" for the SIG schools over 3 yrs process. #EWA12 1 day ago
  • .@tkonz: Of 18 SIG schools, only about 4 teachers were recruited from strong schools because they "wanted to be part of a big change" #EWA12 1 day ago
  • More updates...

Archives

May 2012
M T W T F S S
« Apr  
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031