Students delayed by promotion gates recovered on-schedule status more easily than those delayed by course failure¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2002 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Among students off schedule before age 15, about 43 percent of the 1991-92 cohorts were still off schedule at 17, versus about 38 percent of the 1993-94 cohorts, suggesting gate-related delays were easier to recover from than course-failure delays. → Elaine M. Allensworth & Shazia Rafiullah Miller 2002
Evidence¶
Elaine M. Allensworth & Shazia Rafiullah Miller 2002¶
Elaine M. Allensworth & Shazia Rafiullah Miller. (2002). Declining High School Enrollment: An Exploration of Causes. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/declining-high-school-enrollment-exploration-causes
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Cohort recovery analysis (Section III, Figure 7). The report interprets that "it was easier for students to recover from delays in grade progression that resulted from promotion gates than from traditional delays (i.e., course failure)," noting ninth-grade repetition did not restrict credit accumulation.
"Among the students in the 1991 and 1992 cohorts that were off schedule before age 15, around 43 percent was still off schedule at age 17. In comparison, only about 38 percent of students off schedule before 15 in the 1993 and 1994 cohorts was still off schedule at age 17"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Later cohorts fell off schedule for graduation at earlier ages, but the percentage off schedule by age 16 changed very little — related
- Retention at the promotion gate increased the likelihood of dropping out by about 8 percentage points by age 17 and 13 points by age 19 — related
- Dropout rates at age 17 remained at prepolicy levels for the first two cohorts through the promotion gate, then declined to 25 percent with the fourth cohort — related
- Graduation by age 18 was slightly higher in later cohorts despite earlier off-schedule status — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
gate-delays-easier-to-recover-than-course-failure |
title |
Students delayed by promotion gates recovered on-schedule status more easily than those delayed by course failure |
description |
Students delayed by promotion gates recovered on-schedule status more easily than those delayed by course failure |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2002 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — elaine-m-allensworth-shazia-rafiullah-miller-2002 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.