Some Effects of the Maintenance of High Standards of Promotion

Abstract

IN MANY studies of the extent and causes of nonpromotion, one finds the opinion expressed by teachers that grade standards must be maintained; that, unless definite standards of achievement are required for promotion, the grade system breaks down, achievement levels are lowered, and the upper-grade teachers are required to teach groups varying too widely in ability. This opinion appears so plausible that it is difficult, without experimental evidence, to demonstrate that just the opposite is true. Hypotheses to be tested.-The purpose of the study reported here is to test three of the hypotheses on which the practice of failing lowachieving pupils is based. The hypotheses may be stated as follows: When minimum grade standards are set and pupils are required to reach specific levels of achievement before being promoted to the next grade, (i) the range of abilities with which the upper-grade teacher has to cope is reduced, (2) pupil achievement in relation to ability is higher, and (3) the average grade standards are higher. There are at least two reasons for doubting the validity of these hypotheses. The first reason is that in schools with rigid achievement standards the over-age, slow-learning pupils remain in the elementary school from one to four years longer than do pupils making normal progress, and the percentage of such pupils in the school is thus increased. A high ratio of dull children may result in (i) lower levels of grade achievement; (2) lower levels of aspiration for, and neglect of, bright pupils; and (3) the aggravation of the problem of range of ability. The second reason is that there is some evidence to indicate that a proportion of the pupils failed for low achievement