Thursday, October 17, 2024

The Effect Of Retention On Academic Achievement - ebookschoice.com

School psychologists have been in the forefront among educators and school professionals to raise concerns both about the potential dangers and the questionable benefits of holding students back. Since opposing retention appears to some to be "counter-intuitive," being able to promote alternatives to retention with research support becomes all the more critical.

 

To accompany the position statement and to offer school psychologists the means to use research to assist in making retention decisions, the following primer is offered.

 

In addition to the greater likelihood of retention if the child is African-American, Hispanic and/or male, children whose parents are high school dropouts and who are living in poverty are also at greater risk for retention. Surveys which have looked at kindergarten retention specifically have found that those children most likely to be retained were boys who were black or Hispanic, were born in the second half of the year, were developmentally delayed or had a physical or learning disability, or who had parents with no college education. Children from families living below the poverty line were also more likely to be retained in kindergarten.

 

The effect of retention on academic achievement as been the subject of many research studies over the years. The quality of these studies is highly variable, and some critics have concluded that the research is so poor that no valid conclusion can be drawn regarding the benefit or harm of retention.

 

Nonetheless, those who have completed more thorough reviews of the research, including meta-analyses of the data, have fairly uniformly concluded that the evidence on the whole does not support the use of student retention. Furthermore, when care is taken to extract the most valid and best-designed studies, the evidence even more clearly supports promoting underachieving students over retaining them.

 

Of the 54 studies which met minimal research standards, 47 found negative effects: children who were retained did worse on subsequent measures of academic achievement than children who were promoted. The disadvantage was particularly pronounced in the area of reading achievement. In general, children who are retained perform the best in the year they are retained and may outperform the promoted children when making same grade comparisons (e.g., comparing the achievement of children retained in first grade after the repeated year to the first grade achievement scores of the promoted children).

 

Studies that look at academic achievement over time have consistently found that even when retained children have the advantage after the repeated year, within two or three years, their achievement has declined to the point where they are doing no better, and are often achieving lower scores than comparable children who were promoted.

 

Individual studies have generally been consistent with this finding. The retained students performed better in the year they repeated but once they entered first grade, their reading and math achievement was no better than the promoted group. This study was noteworthy for the fact that while the students were below average when compared to district norms, they were above average when compared to national norms.

In another study, we looked at grade four achievement in a group of 1,376 low-income, mostly black children. They were compared to a sample of 198 promoted children matched on numerous variables such as reading and math achievement and teacher ratings prior to retention. Children who were retained did significantly poorer than the matched promoted children on both math and reading achievement measures. In reading, for instance, the retained group gained on average about 5 months in the year following retention whereas the promoted group gained 7 months on the Test of Basic Skills.

 

Recently, a large-scale study has been interpreted to support the use of retention. This is a large and complex study and has been critiqued by well-known researchers in the field. The authors' interpretation of their data is that while children who were retained in first grade did not benefit from retention (primarily because of the complexity and severity of their problems), children retained at higher grade levels did benefit. This benefit occurred primarily because the authors felt retention halted a "free fall" that was observed as their academic achievement declined across grade levels. Retention appeared to halt that decline, although critics have argued that the results may have been artifacts of their research design rather than the most valid measures of achievement.

 

The general consensus is that individual children may benefit from retention; however, it is virtually impossible to predict which children benefit and which do not. We analyzed the 10 studies in the meta-analysis which found positive effects of retention and found they had several factors in common: the studies were conducted with a middle-class population in suburban, predominantly white communities, and the children retained were of average intelligence and close to average on standardized achievement tests (i.e., less than .74 standard deviations below the mean). In these same positive studies, detailed education plans were developed to address specific areas of weakness and students were not simply "recycled" through the same curriculum they had been exposed to during the year prior to retention. Many were placed in classes with low student-teacher ratios and some were mainstreamed for part of the school day into classes with their age peers. These studies did not provide similar kinds of individualized assistance for the matched promoted group, thus raising questions about whether it was the retention that produced the benefit or the individualized program.

 

We have found that children who were retained scored lower on measures of self-concept and attitude toward school than children who were promoted, although the differences were relatively slight. Studies since that time have generally found that self-concept measures have not favored promoted children. Retained children perceived themselves to be significantly more competent than promoted children. No initial measure of competence was taken prior to the retention and the unmeasured differences between the two groups initially may account for the significant difference following retention.

 

Most studies of retention use fairly global measures of self-concept or school competence. The fact that students who were retained scored higher on these scales in both these studies than students who were promoted suggests that retention did not damage how they saw themselves as learners.

 

We matched a sample of students placed in a transition class to an equivalent group of children who had been in first grade the year before the transition class was established (called "transition room eligible" students). In each group, half the children were taught reading via a regular classroom basal reading series program while the other half had a carefully designed individualized reading program. This study found that transition-room eligible children placed in a regular first grade classroom and given an individualized reading program outperformed both transition room-eligible children placed in a regular first grade classroom with a traditional reading curriculum and the transition room students taught with the individualized reading program. While this study speaks to the importance of curriculum and instruction in meeting the needs of at-risk students, it also suggests that less tangible factors (such as teacher expectations and classroom climate) may also be playing a role when children are placed in transition classes.

 

Studies that have looked at children being held out a year prior to attending kindergarten also show no clear benefits for the practice. We compared delayed entrants with children who started school "on time" in a suburban school district on a variety of dimensions including academic achievement, social/emotional status and athletic competence. Delayed entrants were children with birthdays between May 1 and September 1 whose parents voluntarily held them out a year. Controlling for ability, we found that although the achievement of delayed entrants was comparable to control students in elementary school, by senior high school, delayed entrants were significantly lower on group standardized achievement measures. From the elementary to secondary school, achievement levels for delayed entrants dropped 12 percentile points. No differences were found in perceived competence; delayed entrants were only slightly more involved in sports at the secondary level. Delayed entrance has also been associated with increased rates of behavior problems.

 

No researcher has found long-term, substantial benefits to the practice of retention. No study has shown that students who are retained do better in high school or after high school than students who are not retained on any measure, even when controlling for important factors such as school achievement, ability, demographic variables, etc.

 

We have found that students who are retained in grade are significantly more likely to drop out of school than students who are promoted, and this holds up even controlling for achievement levels. While 17% of normal age students achieving at the 5th stanine or higher dropped out of school, 41% of overage students achieving at that same level dropped out. Thus, being retained in grade is a better predictor of school dropout than achievement.

 

But school dropout is not the only long-term effect of retention. Several recent studies reported in the medical literature have found other negative effects. One study looked at drug use in an "old-for-grade" high school population in urban/suburban Chicago. 37% of the student population surveyed were old for grade. One shortcoming of the study is that the authors were unable to determine the causes for being old for grade; thus, it is not possible to determine if children who were held out a year or retained early in their school career were more or less likely to engage in these risky behaviors than those who were retained later in school.

 

A new study found that being old for grade was associated with higher levels of emotional distress, substance use and involvement with violence. They also found that students who perceive themselves as looking older than their peers were more likely to have used cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana, and were more likely to have used violence and to have expressed suicidal thoughts. The same studies that look at retention effects, when they employ matched samples, also investigate the effects of social promotion.

 

Politicians employ rhetoric rather than research when they make a case for ending social promotion. Some districts have taken steps to tighten promotion policies. In other cases, parents, teachers and school principals appear, on a more informal basis, to be raising retention as a viable intervention to address the problems of underachievement and "immaturity." We are calling for alternatives to both retention and social promotion that more successfully address the needs of at-risk students than either of these practices. While the research evidence suggests that in the absence of other alternatives children are likely to be better off being promoted than being retained, we have taken a stand that schools must find more effective interventions than either of these practices.  

 

 

Jeff C. Palmer is a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many eBooks, articles and special reports.

 

Source: https://ebookschoice.com/the-effect-of-retention-on-academic-achievement/  

Thursday, September 19, 2024

How To Increase The Long-term Effectiveness Of The Investment In Energy Management Systems | DtiCorp.com

 

Energy management systems (EMS) have been demonstrating their value for more than 45 years. Managers in facilities ranging from small, single buildings to multi-million square foot complexes have cut energy and maintenance costs through use of the systems.

 

Energy management systems represent a significant investment for facility managers, both in time and money. Besides the cost of the purchase and installation, facility managers must spend time with the system designer identifying systems and components that will connect to the system, and the control strategies that will be used to operate those systems.

 

While most facility managers understand the steps that must be taken during design and construction to ensure system success, many overlook equally important steps to be taken during the operational and the transition to operational phases of an EMS project. These steps generally determine the system's long-range effectiveness.

 

Maintenance managers can take three steps that can be taken by facility managers to ensure they get the most out of their EMS investment:

 

-           performing an acceptance test

-           completing several levels of training for system operators and maintenance personnel

-           performing routine and PM tasks over the system's operational life.

 

Acceptance testing

 

One of the most overlooked tasks in an EMS installation is the performance of an acceptance test. Too often, managers accept a demonstration of system operation in place of a thorough acceptance test. Demonstrating the operation of system start/stop operations, temperature reading or resetting capabilities is no indication of the proper system operation.

 

In contrast, an acceptance test is a formal procedure used to test the system. It is designed to force the installed system to demonstrate the proper operation and calibration of all field devices, the integrity of the communication system and the operation of the system software. Depending on the size of the system, testing may run weeks or months. Problems, as discovered, are added to the contractor's final punch list, with system acceptance only after they have been corrected.

 

The acceptance test is not a single test but rather, a series of tests. It starts with a visual inspection of all components to verify compliance with contract specifications and manufacturer installation requirements. Inspect all wiring for workmanship and code compliance, and inspect all components for damage.

 

The next portion of the acceptance test should be designed to verify the points installed as part of the system. Test digital input devices, such as door alarm contacts, in the open and closed position, and verify the readout at the central console. Command digital output devices, such as motor start/stop points, to both states, and verify in the field the operation of the device being controlled.

 

Digital input devices, such as temperature sensors, should have their operation simulated and verified through their entire range. Digital output devices, such as thermostatic controls, should be commanded to 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent of full-scale output and the response of the device being controlled verified in the field.

 

Completing the acceptance test

 

Once system components have been verified for proper installation, test the operation of the system hardware. To run this portion of the acceptance test, the entire database of programmed start/stop times, control setpoints, control sequences, and alarm limits must have been loaded into the system. Start the system, place it in automatic operation, and run for a period of time, typically two to three weeks.

 

Note individual component failures, such as a temperature sensor, and add them to the project punch list. If a major failure should occur, such as loss of communication between field devices and the host computer, the test is generally terminated. Once the problem has been identified and corrected, the test is started over rather than continued from the previous point.

 

When testing is complete, the contractor should turn over to the facility and maintenance managers:

 

-           a list of all points in the facility, certification that all points are operating properly and are calibrated properly

-           a written record of all tests and measurements

-           an explanation of all failures and discrepancies.

 

Training

 

Accepting a properly operating system is only half of the battle. The system will provide no benefit unless it is operated properly, which requires training of the staff who will operate and maintain the system and its components.

 

There are several levels of training to complete. Operators must be trained in the basics of system operation. Besides needing to know how to get information out of the system, operators will have to know how to:

 

-           enter or change start/stop schedules

-           set control points

-           define normal operating ranges for systems and components

-           enter alarm settings

-           define control sequences.

 

Most important, operators will have to develop a basic understanding of the systems controlled by the EMS, how they operate and what the impact of the control actions they initiate through the system will be.

 

If you plan to maintain the system in house, a second level of training will be required for those performing the diagnostics and maintenance on the system and its components. Two types of technical skills will be required; electronics and temperature control. Electronics training will be required to work with the data cards, communications equipment, specialized test equipment and computer hardware. While some basic electronics training may be required, most should be targeted for the specific system installed.

 

Similarly, maintenance personnel will need training in the operation and maintenance of temperature control equipment. Besides general training in the operation of temperature control systems, maintenance personnel should receive training in how the EMS carries out control sequences to assist them in diagnosing control problems.

 

Finally, there will have to be training related to the central computer. Fortunately, the use of PCs to drive today's EMS has greatly reduced the level of training to less than what was required for early-generation systems. It still will be necessary, however, to train some operators in more than just basic computer operation. They may not need to know how to repair personal computers, but they will need to know how to work with the system hardware and software.

 

Two-pronged training

 

There are two approaches to completing EMS training; on-site or factory-based sessions. Except in the case of very small systems, use both approaches. Factory training for operators and technicians using simulators is good for both introductory and advanced training programs. It lets trainees learn basic operations without endangering facility equipment or inconveniencing occupants. Factory training also lets operators and technicians see the results of complex control and diagnostic actions.

 

On-site training is ideal for teaching both operators and maintenance personnel the specifics of that particular installation. Where control points and sensors are located, how systems interact; all are site specific and best understood when working with the installed system rather than a factory simulator.

 

Training does not end with acceptance of the system. Besides taking more advanced training to improve their skills, all personnel working with the system should take periodic refresher training. This training is designed to reinforce the skills they learned during introductory training and to weed out bad habits that have developed. To keep system personnel effective, schedule these training sessions regularly - at least once a year.

 

Post-installation activities

 

Energy management systems are complex electro-mechanical systems that require regular preventive and corrective maintenance to remain effective tools. At least once a year, all points in the system should be verified following procedures similar to those used when the system was accepted.

 

The functions of most digital output points are verified daily or weekly as a result of normal system operation, but other points must be verified manually. Analog input and output devices must be verified and recalibrated as the result of drift in sensors and actuators. All digital input points must be verified manually to ensure proper reporting of change of state.

 

Energy management systems are not static. Changes will be made to the way in which systems and components are configured. Sensors will be changed out or moved to new locations. New sensor and control points will be added. Software will be modified or upgraded.

 

If the system is to be kept manageable, all changes must be documented as they are made. Without such documentation, it will be difficult or impossible to know what is installed where. Good documentation also helps maintenance personnel track down system problems quicker and more accurately.

 

By performing these three tasks - performing an acceptance test, training personnel and documenting system changes and expansions - maintenance managers will greatly increase the long-term effectiveness of the investment in energy management systems.

 

 

Source: https://dticorp.com/how-to-increase-the-long-term-effectiveness-of-the-investment-in-energy-management-systems/