HD69 - The Social Promotion of Students


Executive Summary:
HJR 175 focused on the causes of social promotion, its prevalence among the public schools of the Commonwealth, and the grade levels and numbers of students affected. Although social promotion was the topic of the study, retention and remediation were included because of their interrelationship.

The decision to promote or retain a student is a local option. There is no provision in the Standards of Accreditation, the Standards of Quality, or State Board of Education Regulations to govern local promotion policies.

Social promotion is an informal procedure made at the classroom level. Data are not collected, and the prevalence of social promotion cannot be ascertained in Virginia. On the other hand, data are collected about retention rates. Student retention dipped to a low of 4.0 percent in 1972-74 and reached a high of 7.9 percent in 1978-79. In 1994-95, the retention rate was 4.7 percent.

Causes of social promotion point to (a) the nature of the elementary curriculum, (b) lack of precise academic standards, (b) concern about the stigma associated with retention, (c) belief that retention does not help students, (d) pressure from the principal, (e) no perceived alternatives to retention, (f) pressure from parents, (9) student maturity, (h) low achievement, (i) student learning deficiencies, and (j) faulty diagnosis.

Cause and effect cannot be proven, but a strong relationship has been established between retention and drop-out rates and negative attitudes about school. Retention does not seem to help the majority of students, and gains made by retainees tend to disappear over time. Students who are retained in lower grades show the most improvement.

There is an average 25-percent remediation rate among Virginia students entering Virginia colleges and universities (1993-94). Being underprepared and unprepared for college-level work were among the reasons cited as the need for remedial courses. Students in remedial courses may have been social promotions in high school, but there are no data to substantiate this. Reasons for placement in remedial courses in college include (a) late decisions to attend college, (b) poor study skills, (c) limited proficiency in English, (d) misunderstanding of college requirements, and (e) difficulty with traditional curricula.

With the implementation of the Standards of Learning (SOLs) which define expectations at each grade level and with assessments at grades 3, 5, 8, and 11, educators will now have clear and common measures of academic achievement. These measures may offer an independent evaluation outside of the student's classroom grades of his/her academic progress.

Two state-level school improvement initiatives, High Schools That Work (HSTW) and Tech Prep, supported through the Department of Education focus on changing (a) what students are taught, (b) how they are taught, and (c) what schools expect of students; and (d) connecting what is learned in high school with careers and colleges. Title I, also a state-level improvement initiative, mandates challenging content and performance standards for Title I students and helps students meet the educational standards in Virginia's Standards of Learning.

Strategies for ensuring that students are promoted upon merit and satisfactory completion of relevant academic requirements include (a) setting higher expectations, (b) revising academic curriculum, (c) revising vocational curriculum, (d) developing challenging programs of study, (e) providing time for teachers to work together, (f) changing the instructional process, (g) providing guidance and advisement, (h) structuring extra help and extra time, (i) collecting assessment and evaluation information, (j) collaborating to provide work-based learning, (k) recognizing student achievement, (I) planning remediation I and (m) collaborating with teacher educators.