FCAT-based Grade-3 Retention Legislature Analysis Flawed
Written by PT   
January 21, 2007
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). 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: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

###
About the Press Release
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).


 
< Prev   Next >