The document summarizes a proposed research study on student and family experiences with Ohio's Third Grade Reading Guarantee mandate. The study would use a descriptive case study approach to examine the experiences of struggling third grade readers and their families as they go through the intervention and potential retention process. Data would be collected through interviews, observations, and documents and analyzed using interpretive analysis. The goals are to provide experiential data to inform policy and fill gaps in research on the experiences of retention.

1. Student and Family Experiences
with the Third Grade Guarantee
Mandate
Jennifer Zajac
July 23, 2013

2. Introduction
 Beginning 2013-2014 school year, elementary school students in Ohio will
be subject to the Third-Grade Reading Guarantee
 Students will perform at a score of 392 or better on the third grade Ohio
Achievement Assessment in reading or they will be retained
(Lieszkovszky, 2012)
 Schools are required to include parent communication, diagnostic
testing, improvement plans, interventions and progress monitoring.
 If students fail to make appropriate progress, they will be retained

3. Introduction
 2 key components to Ohio’s Third Grade Reading Guarantee
 Classroom intervention (RTI)
 Retention

4. Literature Review - RTI
 Little data regarding student/family experience
 Teachers perceive to be beneficial
 Provides early intervention
 Targeted intervention (individualized)
 Increased collaboration
 Teachers feel it shows social and academic improvement in students

5. Literature Review - Retention
 Research on retention is questionable
 Researchers of retention argue that effective interventions are needed in order to aid
struggling students rather than repeating the academic content taught the previous year.
 Research on retention leans towards proving that retention at an early age does not lead
to achievement growth in the long term (Chen, X., Liu, C., Zhang, L., Shi, Y.
&Rozelle, S., 2010; Goos, M. Van Damme, J. Onghena, P. &Petry, K., 2011; Moser, S.
E., West, S. G, & Hughes, J. N., 2012; and Range, B. G, Holt, C. R., Pijanowski, J., &
Young, S., 2012)
 Retention costs more than $14 billion a year (Dawson, 1998 )
 U.S. Department of Education’s civil rights office shows inequity in retentions with
increased retentions among black and Hispanic students (Robelen, Adams & Shah, 2012)

6. Research Issues
 If retention is not proven to be an ineffective intervention, why are nearly
10% of students retained at one point between grades K-9?
 Range, Holt, Pijanowski& Young (2012) looked at perceptions of retention and
found that 64% of teachers and 68% of principals believe in retaining students
despite evidence that it does not improve academic achievement.
 High-stakes testing and demand for accountability
 RTI proves to be an effective intervention yet little experiential data exists

7. Research Questions
 The goal of the research is to learn how students and families experience
the new Third Grade Reading Guarantee, the intervention process and
retention.
 How do students and families experience the Third Grade Reading Guarantee?
 What does the child experience in the third-grade classroom as a result of this
mandate?
 What do the parents experience?
 Finally, how will students who have been retained experience the retention
itself, what will it look like for them?

8. Methodology
 constructivist approach
 attempts to shed light on the experiences of students and families as they
go through the process of meeting the Third Grade guarantee
 descriptive case study of students identified as struggling readers in the
third grade in a medium-sized rural community during their third grade-year
and the year following

9. Methodology
 A sample of five students and their families, at least three of which would
be considered high risk for retention, minority or low socio-economic status
(Merriam, 1998)
 Two-year study – students’ third-grade year and the following year

10. Data Collection
 Formal Interviews
 Informal Interviews
 Participant Observation
 Document Review

11. Data Analysis
 Interpretive analysis (Hatch, 2002, p. 181)
 Reviewed for a sense of whole
 Coding
 Summary reports (member checking)
 Trustworthiness
 Attention to the details of the narrative derived from observations and interviews
 Naturalistic generalizations

12. Conclusion
 Goals
1) provide experiential data that can be pulled from to inform policy decisions
regarding intervention and retention, and
2) to fill a gap in existing research on retention