Much has been written about the third grade retention policy Florida enacted in 2002. Less is known about the similar, middle-school-centric policies that followed in 2004 for English language arts (ELA) and expanded to other subjects in 2006. A recent study from CALDER examines the effects of this effort on both short- and long-term postsecondary outcomes and presents some positive findings.
Florida state policy requires all middle school students who score below the proficient level in reading or math on standardized tests to be subject to remediation in the corresponding subject the following year. However, “remediation” is a bit of a misnomer here, as, with few exceptions, those students have to take a regular course in the subject and a remedial course in the same year. Double dosing is the more apt terminology. In the large, unnamed urban district that is the focus of the study, 22 percent of all middle schoolers took a remedial ELA course in the 2006–07 school year along with their standard course, compared to just 6 percent in math. Thus the study focuses on the structure and effects of this double dosing form of ELA remediation.
The policy also states that remedial teachers must have a reading endorsement or certification and that the infrastructure must be “adequate” for the purpose of catching student up. The meaning of the latter is nebulous, but on the ground, data show those requirements translate into remedial courses with smaller class sizes and more experienced teachers with higher value added. The study sample includes students enrolled in K–12 between 2005–06 and 2018–19, with a special focus on middle schoolers whose postsecondary outcomes are available years later. A regression discontinuity design compares students right above and below the cutoff for double dosing per state policy. Because of this design, we don’t know how the additional courses might impact lower-performing students not near the cutoff—an important limitation.
Descriptively, students who score right below the cut off spend 133 minutes more per week in ELA courses, have 2.5 fewer students on average in their classes, and have lower achieving and lower income peers. The analysis shows no crowding out of traditional academic subjects, an understandable concern, as the policy does not call for a longer school day, but it does show that physical education and music courses get the squeeze.
The key finding shows a positive effect on reading scores, but it dissipates after the year of double dosing; no adverse effects on suspension or absences are observed. Remedial ELA course-taking also has a major negative effect on advanced course-taking in other subjects during the year of double dosing due to students being placed in lower tracks in other subjects during the double-dose year. However, that effect subsequently vanishes, suggesting they are no longer placed in lower tracks beyond the first year.
Significant positive benefits occur relative to advanced course taking further down the line, whereby double dosing on ELA courses increases the likelihood of students taking college credit bearing courses by 3.5 percentage points and by a smaller amount in social studies—although not at all in math or science. Double-dose course-taking does not impact the likelihood of students receiving a diploma either way.
Even further down the line, there is a small positive effect on the likelihood of double-dosed students ever enrolling in college, ever attending a very competitive college, persisting in college beyond the first year and second year (by a noteworthy 4.6–4.7 percentage points), and subsequently receiving a two- or four-year college degree. Although these longer-term impacts seem to contradict the short-term score effects that dissipated, the author comments that other studies have shown the same and may indicate that test scores have lower predictive validity on postsecondary and adult outcomes than other measures like course taking and non-cognitive skills. Finally, the study finds some evidence that, for higher-performing girls, double dosing on ELA courses in middle school has outsized impacts compared to their male peers on nearly all of the outcomes analyzed, including increasing the odds of enrolling in college by roughly 30 percent. Yet another troubling outcome for our young men in K–12 schools.
State law and this working paper may use the term “remediation,” but the double-dose design—providing remediation and grade-level work in the same year—and the requirement for highly-qualified teachers marks Florida’s program out as something different. And that is a good thing, since old school efforts are not what our kids need today. Good policy design, with faithful execution and positive results, is the right prescription—no matter what you call it.
SOURCE: Umut Özek, “The Effects of Middle School Remediation on Postsecondary Success: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from Florida,” CALDER Working Papers (September 2021).
