# data[].attributes.headline
Structural and Organizational Issues in Classrooms and Schools. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Structural and Organizational Issues in Classrooms and Schools. 

# data[].attributes.body
Grade retention:

Grade Retention is a horrible thing to do to a child. It is easy for teachers and parents to say, “Oh, the student’s skills will improve very well, and it will do good.” However, it is the student who goes through this whole retention thing. In fact, there is only one Pro in Grade retention, and that is that the child’s studies would improve. I could say that studies and education are critical any day, but there is no use in it if a child’s social behavior is going to be damaged forever. So the pro is: The child gets smarter while learning things once again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pros of repeating a grade

Cons of repeating a grade

Kids who've missed a lot of school due to illness, emotional trauma or a move may benefit from repeating a grade.

A child who's just been absent often is already at higher risk for dropping out of school. Repeating a grade increases the risk.

Kids who are much younger than grade-level peers and who have a history of struggling academically can benefit from repeating a grade. It can be a better fit emotionally and age-wise.

Kids who are already the oldest in their grade will be almost two years older than the rest of the class.

For kids who are developmentally immature (either physically or emotionally), repeating a grade may reduce the stress of trying to "keep up."

For kids who are physically large for their age, repeating a grade can make them stand out more.

Kids who are far enough behind that it's unlikely they'll catch up in the next grade may benefit. However, they'll still need supports in place to help them master skills.

Kids who will be taught the same skills in the same way without any different supports in place typically don't benefit from repeating. And kids who stay back tend to lose the positive gains within two to three years after being held back.

Kids who have behavior issues or stress that's clearly related to schoolwork may benefit from another year.

Kids who have behavior issues or stress related to the classroom environment typically don't benefit from staying in the same class another year.

Kids who can tell you they feel like another year in the same grade will be helpful are good candidates for repeating a grade.

Kids who are strongly opposed to staying back are more likely to find ways to make it not work.

Keep in mind that kids won't outgrow learning and thinking differences by repeating a grade. And there are more things you can do:

About the Author

About the Author

worked as a classroom teacher and as an early intervention specialist for 10 years. She is the author of Amanda Morin The Everything Parent's Guide to Special Education. Two of her children have learning differences.

Reviewed by

Reviewed by

Ginny Osewalt is a dually certified elementary and special education teacher with more than 15 years of experience in general education, inclusion, resource room, and self-contained settings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pros of repeating a grade Cons of repeating a grade Kids who've missed a lot of school due to illness, emotional trauma or a move may benefit from repeating a grade. A child who's just been absent often is already at higher risk for dropping out of school.

# data[].attributes.headline
Essential Questions Concerning Grade Retention

# data[].attributes.subject
Essential Questions Concerning Grade Retention

# data[].attributes.body
In general, students should remain with age mates but have individual targeted instruction to bring them up to grade level. But that is not true of every case. Some children require retention because of physical or environmental reasons. Each child must be dealt with in the light of their own needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Burning Questions About a Student Repeating a Grade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Grade retention is a practice where a student repeats a particular grade, allowing them to improve and grow in several key academic and social areas.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why we should do away with grade retention. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Why we should do away with grade retention. 

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers and parents should try not to grade retain their kids. It is not good. Either accept this advice or leave it you decide but this is my whole experience and opinion on it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week, Michigan's legislature passed a bill requiring schools to hold back third-graders who fall a grade-level behind in reading.[i] If Governor Rick Snyder signs the bill, Michigan will become the 17 th state to adopt such a policy.[ii]

Mandatory grade retention is clearly popular, at least among many state legislators. This is understandable given the importance of early reading skills for future outcomes and the shockingly low levels of basic reading proficiency in many communities.

But is it good policy?

The impact of mandatory retention on student academic outcomes

Critics of mandatory retention have long argued that it is harmful to children, offering little academic benefit while increasing the likelihood of eventual dropout. And, it is true, compared with peers who have progressed normally through early grades, students who repeat a grade during elementary school tend to have notably worse outcomes.

But it is also true that students who are held back tend to face greater challenges for many reasons-they are more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds and have lower initial academic achievement relative to other children. Even if two children appear similar in terms of all observable characteristics, it is nearly certain that the retained child differs in some important way from the child who was promoted, and it is likely that this difference will influence each child's long-term outcomes. In the program evaluation literature, this is known as selection bias, and it makes it very hard to infer the impact of a particular program or policy from observational data.

In order to circumvent the issue of selection bias in the case of mandatory retention policies like the one proposed for Michigan, recent studies have utilized a statistical approach that compares children who fall just above and just below the cutoff used to determine retention.[iii] Given the stringency with which such policies are enforced, the difference of just a few test questions on one exam can determine if a student is retained or promoted, making the retention outcome close to random.

While these studies find that retention per se is not nearly as harmful as prior research suggests, they also do not find significant and lasting benefits. Several studies find that retention is associated with short-term improvements in standardized test scores, but these seem to fade within several years. And none of these "new generation" studies indicate any positive effects on high school completion. (To be fair, they do not find that retention reduces the likelihood of graduation, either.)

Consider the case of Florida. While it is true that the state saw impressive initial gains in fourth-grade reading scores after adopting the policy in 2002, a rigorous analysis found that by the time kids who repeated third grade reached middle school, they were no better off than their peers who just missed being retained.[iv] Moreover, Florida invested nearly $100 million per year in tutoring, summer school, and teacher professional development to support early reading at the same time it implemented mandatory retention. It is unclear whether a retention policy alone would have similarly positive effects.

Costs

Even if one concedes (as I do) that retention may have some short-term positive impacts on student achievement, it is important to examine the costs.

Mandatory retention is an extremely expensive way to help struggling readers. In other states that have tried this approach, up to 20 percent of third-graders have been held back, which means that they will end up spending an additional year in school. In Michigan, only 45.2 percent of third graders scored at or above the proficiency threshold in 2016.[v] This means that nearly 60,000 children in the state would have been subject to retention had the policy been in place last year. Given that Michigan spends over $10,000 per pupil each year, if even two-third of those students were retained, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.[vi]

Alternatives

If there were no other strategies to improve early reading performance, one could excuse the Michigan legislators for considering retention. But it turns out that there are a number of interventions that have been shown to help struggling readers.[vii] The randomized evaluation of the i3-funded scale up of Reading Recovery found quite large short-run impacts of the program at scale (0.3-0.4 standard deviation improvement from participation in the 12-20 week intervention).[viii] This intervention is fairly expensive at $4,400 to $7,300 per student,[ix] but other effective interventions are much cheaper. Last year, MDRC released results of a randomized evaluation of a volunteer-based tutoring program, Reading Partners, that increased reading achievement by 0.1 of a standard deviation for an out-of-pocket cost to the schools of only $320 per student.[x]

Conclusions

The Michigan bill is particularly puzzling because it actually mandates many of the alternative interventions identified as effective by practitioners and/or researchers, including regular diagnostic assessment of children in grades K-3, "evidence-based" small group or 1-on-1 supplemental instruction for students in K-3 failing to meet benchmarks, and intensive teacher professional development. Of course, there is no guarantee that districts and schools will have money to pay for such programs, particularly given the very large number of students who will qualify for them based on the standard established by the retention policy.[xi] Early reading proficiency is an important policy priority, and state legislators are right to focus attention in this area. But smart policy involves looking closely at costs as well as benefits of interventions.
The author did not receive financial support from any firm or person for this article or from any firm or person with a financial or political interest in this article. He is currently not an officer, director, or board member of any organization with an interest in this article.
[i] http://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2016/09/21/third-grade-reading/90800246/

[ii] http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/article103180952.html

[iii] The following links describe analyses in Chicago, New York and Florida.
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003465304323023778#.V-Q5-fArLmE https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.1.3.33 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304407607001194 http://www.nber.org/papers/w21509
[iv] http://www.nber.org/papers/w21509

[v] http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Spring_2016_M-STEP_Statewide_Two-year_Bar_Charts_533305_7.pdf

[vi] If one were doing a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of retention, one would want to take into account a variety of other factors, including the extent of excess capacity (i.e., open seats) in schools currently, the additional costs (if any) of hiring new teachers and/or expanding building space, etc.

[vii] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-e-slavin/twenty-four-proven-progra_b_12030772.html?

[viii] http://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/rr_cover_snipit.png

[ix] http://cbcse.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2013-Hollands-Improving-early-literacy1.pdf

[x] http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Mobilizing_Volunteer_Tutors_FR.pdf

[xi] It is possible that the threat of grade retention will have an independent effect on student performance by mobilizing school staff and families to more effectively and efficiently utilize some of the early grade interventions described above. But this seems a tenuous rationale on which to base such a high-stakes policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week, Michigan's legislature passed a bill requiring schools to hold back third-graders who fall a grade-level behind in reading. If Governor Rick Snyder signs the bill, Michigan will become the 17th state to adopt such a policy. But is it good policy?

# data[].attributes.body
There are times that it is not of great benefit to the child, but often time teachers, administration and parents have thought long and hard about these decisions and are trying to make the best possible choice for the student.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Keywords

Grade retention, School completion, Dropout, Overage students, High school students

Abstract

There are numerous factors associated with not finishing high school (Mann, 1986). This study focused on one of them: grade retention.

Prior research reveals that dropouts are five times more likely to have been retained than high school graduates, and that a student retained once has a 35 percent chance of dropping out of school (Shepard & Smith, 1989). Historically, grade retention has been a common intervention for students who perform poorly in the classroom. Yet meta-analytic studies reveal that retention in grade does little to improve school achievement or social adjustment (Holmes & Matthews, 1984).

Despite numerous statistical studies, educators still do not fully understand why retained students eventually drop out. Consistent with previous calls for additional qualitative research in this area, I conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with retained students who had dropped out prior to graduation from high school.

The specific purpose of this study was to discover the meaning that high school dropouts attributed to their retention experiences. Three broad questions guided this research: (1) What are the perspectives of retained students who leave school prior to graduation? (2) What relationships, if any, exist between grade repeating and dropping out of school? (3) How might students' perspectives inform policy and practices on grade retention?

The interview strategy was selected in order to gather rich, descriptive information in students' own words. I interviewed 24 students from two school districts and one BOCES in the Southern Tier of New York State. All interviewees had dropped out of school in the recent past (that is, since 1989), and all experienced at least one year of retention at some time in grades K-12.

Findings from this study suggest that: (1) Grade retention was a major factor contributing to dropping out. (2) Redundancy, rather than remediation, characterized the retained-grade experience. (3) Both being overage for grade and dropping out of school were painful for students. (4) Schools' failures to make connections alienated some students. (5) A number of institutional practices pushed students out of school.

I conclude that common school policies and practices, as well as students' choices and outside-of-school experiences, both presented obstacles to interviewees' school completion. I recommend areas for future research and discuss implications for educational practice.

http://libezproxy.syr.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=725896121&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=3739&RQT=309&VName=PQD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grade retention and school completion: A qualitative study of students' perspectives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are numerous factors associated with not finishing high school (Mann, 1986). This study focused on one of them: grade retention. Prior research reveals that dropouts are five times more likely to have been retained than high school graduates, and that a student retained once has a 35 percent chance of dropping out of school (Shepard & Smith, 1989).

# data[].attributes.body
Retention, or the practice of holding students back a grade, is another common practice in schools. Like tracking, retention is intertwined with other policies and practices that exacerbate inequality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
8. Federal funding for Reading. Federal funding in Florida still supports No Child Left Behind programs, which establish accountability measures for public schools to ensure that students in all schools are reaching proficiency in reading and math. I doubt retention is one of the requirements. Get a copy of your state's Reading First Grant application. [No longer available]

See Just Read, Florida for the Florida state academic reading standards.

Statutory Requirement for Third-Grade Reading in Florida.

Was mass retention included in the plan approved by the U. S. Department of Education? Reading First Grants. [No longer available]

In 2010, Florida was notified that it would receive up to $700 million in federal funds through the Race to the Top grant program. Get a copy of your state's Race to the Top application. Read what it says about increasing student reading performance, providing a comprehensive system of research based reading instruction, decreasing the student dropout and retention rates, and what it doesn't say about mandatory retention.

9. File a formal No Child Left Behind complaint with the US Department of Education.

A concise well-documented letter should suffice. Send written documentation of your facts along with the letter. Send copies, not originals. Do not write on original documents. You may need the original later.

To find out who your No Child Left Behind contact is, go http://www2.ed.gov/about/contacts/state/index.html

You cannot fight this battle alone. Give this information to other people so they can help. Print the documents listed in this article. Bring these documents with you when you talk to school administrators, legislators, or people who work for the Florida Department of Education.

* * * Every Student Succeeds Act * * *
Signed December 10, 2015 /391 pdf pages, click here to download.

Congress has reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the statute formerly known as No Child Left Behind. The new statute,
Note: Every Student Succeeds Act, was signed into law by President Obama on December 10, 2015.

Wrightslaw is in the process of creating the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) page that will include articles, publications, and other resources about the new statute.

*******************

Parents will need to make a case for each child that the school has not taught.

However, if the school completed the required assessments and correctly identified the child's weaknesses and if the child received intensive reading instruction from a properly qualified teacher who used an appropriate research-based reading program, VERY few children will fall into the proposed retention category.

If more than a handful of children are forced to stay behind so the school can try to be more successful in the fourth year than they were in the first three years, there is a problem with the education of school board members and superintendents.

Retention is a primitive approach to failed teaching. There is NO research that retention benefits children and substantial research that retention damages children.

Title XLVIII. K-20 EDUCATION CODE

Chapter 1008 - ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
1008.25 Public school student progression; remedial instruction; reporting requirements.--

(1) INTENT.--It is the intent of the Legislature that each student's progression from one grade to another be determined, in part, upon satisfactory performance in reading, writing, science, and mathematics; that district school board policies facilitate student achievement; that each student and his or her parent be informed of that student's academic progress; and that students have access to educational options that provide academically challenging coursework or accelerated instruction pursuant to s. 1002-3105.

(2) COMPREHENSIVE STUDENT PROGRESSION PLAN. -Each district school board shall establish a comprehensive plan for student progression which must:

(a) Provide standards for evaluating each student's performance, including how well he or she masters the performance standards approved by the State Board of Education.

(b) Provide specific levels of performance in reading, writing, science, and mathematics for each grade level, including the levels of performance on statewide assessments as defined by the commissioner, below which a student must receive remediation or be retained within an intensive program that is different from the previous year's program and that takes into account the student's learning style.

(c) Provide appropriate alternative placement for a student who has been retained 2 or more years.

(d)1. List the student eligibility and procedural requirements established by the school district for whole-grade promotion, midyear promotion, and subject-matter acceleration that would result in a student attending a different school, pursuant to s. 1002.3105(2)(b).

2. Notify parents and students of the school district's process by which a parent may request student participation in whole-grade promotion, midyear promotion, or subject-matter acceleration that would result in a student attending a different school, pursuant to s. 1002.3105(4)(b)2.

(e)1. Advise parents and students that additional ACCEL options may be available at the student's school, pursuant to s. 1002.3105.

2. Advise parents and students to contact the principal at the student's school for information related to student eligibility requirements for whole-grade promotion, midyear promotion, and subject-matter acceleration when the promotion or acceleration occurs within the principal's school; virtual instruction in higher grade level subjects; and any other ACCEL options offered by the principal, pursuant to s. 1002.3105(2)(a).

3. Advise parents and students to contact the principal at the student's school for information related to the school's process by which a parent may request student participation in whole-grade promotion, midyear promotion, and subject-matter acceleration when the promotion or acceleration occurs within the principal's school; virtual instruction in higher grade level subjects; and any other ACCEL options offered by the principal, pursuant to s. 1002.3105(4)(b)1.

(f) Advise parents and students of the early graduation options under s. 1003.4281.

(g) List, or incorporate by reference, all dual enrollment courses contained within the dual enrollment articulation agreement established pursuant to s. 1007.271(21).

(h) Provide instructional sequences by which students in kindergarten through high school may attain progressively higher levels of skill in the use of digital tools and applications. The instructional sequences must include participation in curricular and instructional options and the demonstration of competence of standards required pursuant to ss. 1003.41 and 1003.4203 through attainment of industry certifications and other means of demonstrating credit requirements identified under ss. 1002.3105, 1003.4203, 1003.428, and 1003.4282.

(3) ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.--District school boards shall allocate remedial and supplemental instruction resources to students in the following priority:

(a) Students who are deficient in reading by the end of grade 3.

(b) Students who fail to meet performance levels required for promotion consistent with the district school board's plan for student progression required in paragraph (2)(b) .

(4) ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION.--

(a) Each student must participate in the statewide, standardized assessment program required by s. 1008.22. Each student who does not meet specific levels of performance on the required assessments as determined by the district school board or who scores below Level 3 on FCAT Reading or FCAT Mathematics or on the common core English Language Arts or mathematics assessments as applicable under s. 1008.22 must be provided with additional diagnostic assessments to determine the nature of the student's difficulty, the areas of academic need, and strategies for appropriate intervention and instruction as described in paragraph (b).

(b) The school in which the student is enrolled must develop, in consultation with the student's parent, and must implement a progress monitoring plan. A progress monitoring plan is intended to provide the school district and the school flexibility in meeting the academic needs of the student and to reduce paperwork. A student who is not meeting the school district or state requirements for proficiency in reading and mathematics shall be covered by one of the following plans to target instruction and identify ways to improve his or her academic achievement:

1. A federally required student plan such as an individual education plan;
2. A schoolwide system of progress monitoring for all students; or
3. An individualized progress monitoring plan.

The plan chosen must be designed to assist the student or the school in meeting state and district expectations for proficiency. If the student has been identified as having a deficiency in reading, the K-12 comprehensive reading plan required by s. 1011.62(9) shall include instructional and support services to be provided to meet the desired levels of performance. District school boards may require low-performing students to attend remediation programs held before or after regular school hours or during the summer if transportation is provided.

(c) Upon subsequent evaluation, if the documented deficiency has not been remediated, the student may be retained. Each student who does not meet the minimum performance expectations defined by the Commissioner of Education for the statewide assessment tests in reading, writing, science, and mathematics must continue to be provided with remedial or supplemental instruction until the expectations are met or the student graduates from high school or is not subject to compulsory school attendance.

(5) READING DEFICIENCY AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION.--

(a) Any student who exhibits a substantial deficiency in reading, based upon locally determined or statewide assessments conducted in kindergarten or grade 1, grade 2, or grade 3, or through teacher observations, must be given intensive reading instruction immediately following the identification of the reading deficiency. The student's reading proficiency must be reassessed by locally determined assessments or through teacher observations at the beginning of the grade following the intensive reading instruction. The student must continue to be provided with intensive reading instruction until the reading deficiency is remedied.

(b) If a student's reading deficiency is not remedied by the end of grade 3, as demonstrated by scoring Level 2 or higher on the statewide, standardized assessment required under s. 1008.22 for grade 3, the student must be retained.

(c) The parent of any student who exhibits a substantial deficiency in reading, as described in paragraph (a), must be notified in writing of the following:

1. That his or her child has been identified as having a substantial deficiency in reading.

2. A description of the current services that are provided to the child.

3. A description of the proposed supplemental instructional services and supports that will be provided to the child that are designed to remediate the identified area of reading deficiency.

4. That if the child's reading deficiency is not remediated by the end of grade 3, the child must be retained unless he or she is exempt from mandatory retention for good cause.

5. Strategies for parents to use in helping their child succeed in reading proficiency.

6. That the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) is not the sole determiner of promotion and that additional evaluations, portfolio reviews, and assessments are available to the child to assist parents and the school district in knowing when a child is reading at or above grade level and ready for grade promotion.

7. The district's specific criteria and policies for midyear promotion. Midyear promotion means promotion of a retained student at any time during the year of retention once the student has demonstrated ability to read at grade level.

(6) ELIMINATION OF SOCIAL PROMOTION.--

(a) No student may be assigned to a grade level based solely on age or other factors that constitute social promotion.

(b) The district school board may only exempt students from mandatory retention, as provided in paragraph (5)(b), for good cause. Good cause exemptions shall be limited to the following:

1. Limited English proficient students who have had less than 2 years of instruction in an English for Speakers of Other Languages program.

2. Students with disabilities whose individual education plan indicates that participation in the statewide assessment program is not appropriate, consistent with the requirements of State Board of Education rule.

3. Students who demonstrate an acceptable level of performance on an alternative standardized reading or English Language Arts assessment approved by the State Board of Education.

4. A student who demonstrates through a student portfolio that he or she is performing at least at Level 2 on FCAT Reading or the common core English Language Arts assessment, as applicable under s. 1008.22.

5. Students with disabilities who participate in FCAT Reading or the common core English Language Arts assessment, as applicable under s. 1008.22, and who have an individual education plan or a Section 504 plan that reflects that the student has received intensive remediation in reading and English Language Arts for more than 2 years but still demonstrates a deficiency and was previously retained in kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2, or grade 3.

6. Students who have received intensive remediation in reading and English Language Arts, as applicable under s. 1008.22, for 2 or more years but still demonstrate a deficiency and who were previously retained in kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2, or grade 3 for a total of 2 years. Intensive instruction for students so promoted must include an altered instructional day that includes specialized diagnostic information and specific reading strategies for each student. The district school board shall assist schools and teachers to implement reading strategies that research has shown to be successful in improving reading among low-performing readers.

(c) Requests for good cause exemptions for students from the mandatory retention requirement as described in subparagraphs (b)3. and 4. shall be made consistent with the following:

1. Documentation shall be submitted from the student's teacher to the school principal that indicates that the promotion of the student is appropriate and is based upon the student's academic record. In order to minimize paperwork requirements, such documentation shall consist only of the existing academic improvement plan, individual educational plan, if applicable, report card, or student portfolio.

2. The school principal shall review and discuss such recommendation with the teacher and make the determination as to whether the student should be promoted or retained. If the school principal determines that the student should be promoted, the school principal shall make such recommendation in writing to the district school superintendent. The district school superintendent shall accept or reject the school principal's recommendation in writing.

(7) SUCCESSFUL PROGRESSION FOR RETAINED THIRD GRADE STUDENTS.--

(a) Students retained under the provisions of paragraph (5)(b) must be provided intensive interventions in reading to ameliorate the student's specific reading deficiency, as identified by a valid and reliable diagnostic assessment. This intensive intervention must include effective instructional strategies, participation in the school district's summer reading camp, and appropriate teaching methodologies necessary to assist those students in becoming successful readers, able to read at or above grade level, and ready for promotion to the next grade.

(b) Each school district shall:

1. Provide third grade students who are retained under the provisions of paragraph (5)(b) with intensive instructional services and supports to remediate the identified areas of reading deficiency, including participation in the school district's summer reading camp as required under paragraph (a) and a minimum of 90 minutes of daily, uninterrupted, scientifically research-based reading instruction which includes phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension and other strategies prescribed by the school district, which may include, but are not limited to:

a. Integration of science and social studies content within the 90-minute block.
b. Small group instruction.
c. Reduced teacher-student ratios.
d. More frequent progress monitoring.
e. Tutoring or mentoring.
f. Transition classes containing 3rd and 4th grade students.
g. Extended school day, week, or year.

2. Provide written notification to the parent of any student who is retained under the provisions of paragraph (5)(b) that his or her child has not met the proficiency level required for promotion and the reasons the child is not eligible for a good cause exemption as provided in paragraph (6)(b). The notification must comply with the provisions of s. 1002.20(15) and must include a description of proposed interventions and supports that will be provided to the child to remediate the identified areas of reading deficiency.

3. Implement a policy for the midyear promotion of any student retained under the provisions of paragraph (5)(b) who can demonstrate that he or she is a successful and independent reader and performing at or above grade level in reading and English Language Arts, as applicable under s. 1008.22. Tools that school districts may use in reevaluating any student retained may include subsequent assessments, alternative assessments, and portfolio reviews, in accordance with rules of the State Board of Education.

4. Provide students who are retained under the provisions of paragraph (5)(b) with a highly effective teacher as determined by the teacher's performance evaluation under s. 1012.34.

5. Establish at each school, when applicable, an Intensive Acceleration Class for retained grade 3 students who subsequently score Level 1 on the required statewide, standardized assessment identified in s. 1008.22. The focus of the Intensive Acceleration Class shall be to increase a child's reading and English Language Arts skill level at least two grade levels in 1 school year. The Intensive Acceleration Class shall:

a. Be provided to any student in grade 3 who scores Level 1 on FCAT Reading or the common core English Language Arts assessment, as applicable under s. 1008.22, and who was retained in grade 3 the prior year because of scoring Level 1.
b. Have a reduced teacher-student ratio.
c. Provide uninterrupted reading instruction for the majority of student contact time each day and incorporate opportunities to master the grade 4 Next Generation Sunshine State Standards in other core subject areas.
d. Use a reading program that is scientifically research-based and has proven results in accelerating student reading achievement within the same school year.
e. Provide intensive language and vocabulary instruction using a scientifically research-based program, including use of a speech-language therapist.

(a) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (5)(b), each district school board must annually report to the parent of each student the progress of the student toward achieving state and district expectations for proficiency in reading, writing, science, and mathematics. The district school board must report to the parent the student's results on each statewide assessment test. The evaluation of each student's progress must be based upon the student's classroom work, observations, tests, district and state assessments, and other relevant information. Progress reporting must be provided to the parent in writing in a format adopted by the district school board.

(b) Each district school board must annually publish on the district website and in the local newspaper the following information on the prior school year:

1. The provisions of this section relating to public school student progression and the district school board's policies and procedures on student retention and promotion.

2. By grade, the number and percentage of all students in grades 3 through 10 performing at Levels 1 and 2 on the reading portion of the FCAT.

3. By grade, the number and percentage of all students retained in grades 3 through 10.

4. Information on the total number of students who were promoted for good cause, by each category of good cause as specified in paragraph (6)(b).

5. Any revisions to the district school board's policy on student retention and promotion from the prior year..

The State Board of Education shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 for the administration of this section.
History.-s. 371, ch. 2002-387; s. 8, ch. 2003-118; s. 6, ch. 2004-42; s. 6, ch. 2004-255; s. 119, ch. 2006-1; s. 42, ch. 2006-74; s. 186, ch. 2008-4; s. 9, ch. 2010-22; s. 23, ch. 2012-191; s. 34, ch. 2013-27.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Strategies to Fight Mandatory Retention & Other Damaging Policies by Sue Whitney - Wrightslaw

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
8. Federal funding for Reading. Federal funding in Florida still supports No Child Left Behind programs, which establish accountability measures for public schools to ensure that students in all schools are reaching proficiency in reading and math. I doubt retention is one of the requirements. Get a copy of your state's Reading First Grant application.