Students in the top propensity-for-retention category showed higher gains than students not in the top category¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1995 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In almost all cases, students in the top category of propensity for retention showed higher gains than those not in the top category. → Stuart Luppescu 1995

Evidence¶

Stuart Luppescu 1995¶

Stuart Luppescu, Anthony S. Bryk, Paul Deabster, John Q. Easton, and Yeow Meng Thum. (1995). School Reform, Retention Policy, and Student Achievement Gains. University of Chicago draft report. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/school-reform-retention-policy-and-student-achievement-gains

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive comparison of gains by propensity category across grades 1988-1992 in the Chicago data. The authors state this is "consistent with our investigation of achievement where we found a definite negative correlation between achievement status and gain in the subsequent year." No effect size is printed.

"First of all, in almost all cases, students in the top category in propensity for retention showed higher gains than those not in the top category."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students who were promoted made larger achievement gains than students with the same propensity for retention who were retained, in almost all grades — related
• The propensity-for-retention measure discriminates retained from not-retained students, with first-grade log-odds of retention more than three times greater for actually retained students — related
• Third grade is the notable exception where retained students did not make smaller gains, likely due to the ITBS Level 8 to Level 9 test format change — related