Retention under Mississippi's test-based promotion policy led to substantial and sustained 6th-grade ELA gains for retained students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on a source with no registered publication record (a web page, book or unpublished report). It is kept because a design page cites it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students retained under Mississippi's policy had substantial and sustained literacy gains in ELA scores by 6th grade compared to peers promoted to 4th grade. → Comprehensive Early Literacy Policy: Fundamental Principles 2024

Evidence¶

Comprehensive Early Literacy Policy: Fundamental Principles 2024¶

Comprehensive Early Literacy Policy: Fundamental Principles. (2024). ExcelinEd Policy Toolkit. https://www.excelined.org

q2 · i? · theoretical · r1

The toolkit reports key findings from Mumma and Winters (2023) on Mississippi's test-based promotion policy for the 2014–15 3rd-grade cohort, stating retained students showed "substantial and sustained literacy gains in their ELA scores" versus promoted peers.

"By 6th grade, students who were retained had substantial and sustained literacy gains in their ELA scores compared to their peers who were promoted to 4th grade."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The threat of retention produced statistically significant increases in 3rd-grade math and reading performance before the retention decision — related
• Third-grade retention under the Chicago policy produced no sustained academic benefits or substantial negative effects — related
• Retained sixth graders had lower achievement growth than promoted low-achieving counterparts — reports the opposite
• Retained students showed smaller three-year achievement gains than previously socially promoted students, though Rasch adjustment erased the gap for once-retained third graders — reports the opposite
• Neither promotion nor retention significantly closed the achievement gap of low-achieving students close to the cutoff, and the lowest achievers deteriorated further — related