v13n14.doc


EDUCATION  POLICY  ANALYSIS  ARCHIVES 
A peer-reviewed scholarly journal 

Editor: Sherman Dorn 
College of Education 

 University of South Florida 

Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the 
Education Policy Analysis Archives. EPAA is published jointly by the Colleges of 
Education at Arizona State University and the University of South Florida.  Articles are 
indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org). 

Volume 13  Number 14                 February 17, 2005                          ISSN 1068-2341 

 
 

Staking Out the Successful Student 
 

Christopher Brown 
University of Texas-Austin 

 
Citation: Brown, C. (2005, February 17). Staking out the successful student. Education 
Policy Analysis Archives, 13(14). Retrieved [date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n14/. 

 
This article was accepted by the previous Editor, Gene V Glass (1993-2004). 
 
Abstract 
With the performance of students, teachers, and schools defining success under 
current standards-based accountability policies (e.g. Chicago Public Schools 
(Note 1); No Child Left Behind Act, (United States Department of Education, 
2002)), school districts are implementing various forms of intervention programs 
as a means to improve student performance.  By examining a pilot summer 
school program that is transitioning from a ‘low-stakes’ to a ‘high-stakes’ 
intervention program, this article examines the possibilities that exist for students 
to author themselves as learners, and it questions whether opportunities for 
students to identify themselves as successful learners are lost when an 
intervention program, such as summer school, becomes mandatory.  The 
implications of this analysis highlight questions and concerns that policymakers 
and school personnel need to address when formulating high-stakes standards-
based accountability policies and intervention programs. 

 
 

Under the current standards-based accountability reforms (e.g. Chicago Public Schools 
promotion requirements; No Child Left Behind Act), a student’s failure to perform at the expected 
grade level criterion results in a series of possible negative consequences, e.g. retention, or 
contributing to a school being identified as failing.  Local school districts implement intervention 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            2 

programs, such as summer school, to improve student performance and prevent further negative 
consequences for the child and the school from occurring.   

Multiple studies examine the effectiveness of summer school in improving student 
performance—or what some term preventing summer loss (Cooper, Charlton, Valentine, & 
Muhlenbruck, 2000; Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2001).  For example, Cooper et al. (2000), 
through a meta-analytic and narrative review of 93 evaluations of summer school, found that 
summer school programs focused that on lessening or removing learning deficiencies have a positive 
impact on the knowledge and skills of participants (p. 89).  Remedial summer programs have larger 
positive effects when the program is run for a small number of schools or classes in a small 
community.  Additionally, summer programs that provide small group or individual instruction 
produce the largest impact on student outcomes (Cooper et al. 2000, p. 92).   

Other studies examine the use of summer school as an intervention to avoid retention (Note 
2).   For example, Roderick, Bryk, Jacob, Easton, and Allensworth (1999), Roderick, Nagaoka, 
Bacon, and Eaton (2000), Allensworth (2004), and Nagaoka and Roderick (2004) explore the 
promotion policies within the Chicago Public School System’s standards-based accountability 
reforms.  Students in grades 3, 6, and 8 who fail to meet test score requirements on the Iowa Test of 
Basic Skills (ITBS) may attend summer school and re-take the test at the end of the session to avoid 
retention.  Roderick et al. (2000) and Nagaoka and Roderick (2004) found that student performance 
in grades 3, 6, and 8 on the ITBS (Note 3) increased since the inception of the city’s high-stakes 
policies.  However, Roderick et al. (2000) state that the improvement in 3rd grade test scores may be 
due to the retention of students in the earlier grades.  For example, in 1999, Chicago public schools 
retained 6.6% of 1st graders, 4.1% of 2nd graders, and 1.5% of kindergarteners; all of these are 
significant increases from previous school years (Roderick et al., 2000).  Retained students still 
struggle with the promotion policy after repeating their respective grade (Roderick et al., 2000; 
Nagaoka & Roderick, 2004) (Note 4).  Roderick et al. (2000) conclude that these policies are keeping 
students on track through demonstrating increased test scores for students prior to (e.g., 63% of 6th 
graders passing) and after (e.g., 83% of 6th graders passing) the promotion policies took effect.  Yet, 
these authors have found that retained students are doing no better than those socially promoted, 
and students retained two years in a row are progressing at a slower pace (Roderick et al., 2000; 
Nagaoka & Roderick, 2004) (Note 5).     

Within the analysis of the effects of intervention programs little discussion exists as to what 
effects such programs have on student identity.  How does being identified as a failing student by a 
set of state or district mandated criterion affect one’s self-construction as a learner.  Are 
opportunities for students to identify themselves as successful learners lost when an intervention 
program, such as summer school, becomes mandatory?  Such questions typically do not take on a 
role of prominence within the standards-based accountability movement.  The emphasis on students 
within accountability policies resides in the student’s ability to perform, demonstrating whether or 
not that student exemplifies the skills necessary to succeed within the system.   

By examining a pilot summer school program that was in the process of transitioning from a 
‘low-stakes’ to a ‘high-stakes’ intervention program, I explore the possibilities that exist for students 
to author themselves as learners.  Consequently, the implications of this analysis highlight questions 
and concerns that policymakers and school personnel must address when formulating high-stakes 
standards-based accountability policies and intervention programs. 

 
 
 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    3 

The Context 
 
 This study took place in a mid-size city in the Midwestern United States in the summer of 
2002.  The District developed this summer intervention program in response to a state-based statute 
titled No Social Promotion for grades 4 and 8 (Note 6).  Thisstatute called for local school districts to 
develop a set of promotional criteria based on student performance on the state’s standardized tests 
at grades 4 and 8, a student’s report card, and teacher recommendations.  The District developed a 
policy that determines the promotion of a student to the fifth or ninth grade to be based on a set of 
District-developed hierarchical criteria (Note 7).  The District’s first criterion is for the student to 
attain a minimum grade in language arts, math, science, and social studies.  Failure to do so requires 
the student to attain a proficiency score of basic in that subject area on a state-based standardized 
test (Note 8).  Failure to achieve that score(s) provides the student with the option to be retained or 
to attend a summer program.  Thus, the student must pass the summer program in order to be 
promoted.  Student failure of the program results in grade retention.  This policy went into effect 
during the 2002-2003 school year.   

The District piloted this observed voluntary summer program in order to prepare itself for 
the policy’s implementation. Only students from the District’s Title 1 schools were eligible to attend 
the program.  The primary reason for this requirement is that Title 1 funding covered part of the 
cost of the program.  The criteria used to recommend students for the summer program was based 
on a student’s performance in math and language arts. The criteria (Note 9) for identification of 4th 
grade students eligible to attend the mathematics program required a student to meet two of the 
three following criteria, and that there is an expectation that the student’s attendance during summer 
school will be good. 

 
Mathematics Criteria 

1) The student’s 3rd quarter 4th grade report card identifies the student as either emerging or 
progressing in number and operations.  

2) The student’s 3rd quarter 4th grade report card identifies the student as either emerging or 
progressing in algebraic reasoning. 

3) The student is in the bottom 25% of his/her class in mathematics procedural and 
conceptual knowledge.  

 
The criteria for identification of 4th grade students eligible to attend the language arts program 
required a student to meet two of the three following criteria and that there is an expectation that 
the student’s attendance during summer school will be good. 
 

Language Arts Criteria 
1) The student’s 3rd grade state based reading test score was a minimal or basic. 
2) The student’s current Basic Reading Inventory Level was grade 5 or less.     
3) The student’s 3rd quarter 4th grade report card identifies the student as either emerging or 

progressing in comprehends a variety of texts.   
4) The student’s 3rd quarter 4th grade report card identifies the student as either emerging or 

progressing in applies six traits of writing.  
 
Once the teachers identified those students who met the above mathematics and/or language arts 
criteria, the school principal sent a letter home inviting the student to attend the program.  (See 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            4 

Appendix 1 for a copy of the form letter.)  The letter introduces the program to families as a 
voluntary opportunity for their child to improve her academic skills. 
  The District designed the summer program so that the students will take two course sections 
each day.  Math and language arts were offered for the fourth grade summer school program.  Site 
selection for this program took place at schools within the District that offered enrichment courses. 
Enrichment courses lasted for three weeks for any student in the District grades three through five. 
(Students who were not enrolled in the summer school program had to pay a fee and have their own 
transportation to take these enrichment courses.)  The District divided enrichment school sites by 
location so that there were enrichment and summer school programs on the North side and on the 
South side. The program lasted for 29 days. In order to serve more students in the enrichment 
programs, the District conducted enrichment and summer programs at one school for three weeks 
on the North or South side and then moved to another school on the North or South side for the 
remaining three weeks.  One of the reasons the summer school program located itself in the same 
buildings as the enrichment program was to offer students who only needed assistance in math, 
(which was the first class of the summer school program) to take the math class first and then an 
enrichment class during the second section of the day.  If a student needed assistance in language 
arts only, she would take an enrichment class first and then the language arts class second.  
However, almost all the students’ 4th grade teachers recommended that they enroll in both classes.  
In addition, different teachers taught the math classes and the language art classes. Finally, by using 
Title 1 monies to fund the summer school program, the District offered free transportation and a 
free breakfast to all participants. 
 

Authoring One’s Self as a Learner 
 
 Standards-based accountability reforms identify the students in regards to their level of 
performance in relation to a stated criterion or standard.  Absent from this type of identification are 
the families’, peers’, or the students’ own construction of themselves as a learners.  When students 
enter an intervention program, how do these multiple constructions of themselves as learners affect 
their ability to identify themselves as students?  For this article, Bakhtinian theory is used as a means 
to theorize the affects of the summer school program and the various stakeholders’ images of that 
student on her self-construction.  Bakhtinian theory provides a lens to tease apart the complex 
dialogues that exists within education and educational policy.  Such a deconstruction provides an 
opportunity to identify the influence of these dialogic interactions on the student’s self-authoring 
process.  

According to Mikhail Bakhtin (1984; 1986), constructing one’s self in the dialogic process is 
exemplified through the concept of authoring.  Authoring, as understood through the dialogic 
relationship, is framed through the idea of the individual, the author, existing in constant 
relationship between other individuals and discourses (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 95).  For Bakhtin, 
discourses are social phenomena that cover the entire range “from the sound image to the furthest 
reaches of abstract meaning (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 259).  For example, the summer school student 
operates in dialogic relationships with her teachers, her classmates, the discourses of schooling, peer 
groups, pop culture, etc. 

In view of Bakhtin’s framing of the dialogic relationship, the summer school student 
addresses and answers herself, her teacher, and her classmates (Bakhtin, 1984; 1990; 1993).  This 
fluid movement between multiple dialogic relationships creates a situation where the student’s self-
identification (Note 10) shifts depending on the individual she addresses or answers.  For example, 
the student might ventriloquate (Bakhtin, 1981; Holquist, 1990; Wertsch, 1991) the school’s 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    5 

authoritative discourses by simply mimicking the words of her teacher or the curriculum.  
Additionally, the student might decide to take on the role the teacher verbally assigns her and wear it 
(Note 11) throughout the day in order to avoid drawing unwanted attention.  The student might 
adopt this “clothing of language” as her own and decide that these “clothes” are what she will wear 
while she is in school, possibly at home, or even around her friends (Bakhtin, 1984, p. 291).  These 
acts of ventiloquating and wearing another’s words represent the interaction of many authors and 
many histories on the student’s identity.   

Furthermore, for Bakhtin, a student is in a constant state of construction in shaping who she 
is.  A student’s authoring of herself and the world around her is not the creation of a completed self-
image.  Rather, she is constantly changing her identity and the world around her through the various 
dialogic interactions that take place throughout the day and her life.  Additionally, the people, 
objects, artifacts, etc that she interacts with on a daily basis have a history of their own that were 
shaped through their own dialogic relationships.  Thus, the student’s authorial process is in constant 
formation and reflects her various dialogic interactions with individuals and discourses (Bakhtin, 
1986; 1993). 

This article explores the generative constructs of these dialogic relationships and the density 
of discourses that influence the summer school student’s self-authoring.  Through this exploration, 
it is argued that the administrators’, the teachers’, the parents’, and the students’ framing of the 
summer program fostered multiple dialogic interactions that are not a part of the typical school year.  
These interactions allowed the students an opportunity to develop their selves in a supportive 
environment, which in turn lead to a positive self-image for many of these students. 
 

Methods 
 

This project developed out of a study that examined the effects of summer school on a 
student’s identity as learner and a peer.  Multiple forms of data collection were used throughout the 
project.  Students were surveyed (Note 12) when entering (n=42) and exiting (n=30) the program 
(Note 13).  In addition, parents were surveyed at the end of the program (n=11).  Observations took 
place primarily in a Language Arts program (19 two-hour observations) at the South side location.  
Observations were conducted in the math program (8 two-hour observations) in order to identify 
patterns in my data and to contrast the students’ experiences in different classroom settings.  Field 
notes were generated after each visit in order to use in the analysis process. Additionally, two focal 
students were followed throughout the program, Steven, a bi-racial student diagnosed with 
Attention Deficit Disorder in kindergarten, and Teri, a Caucasian student who missed two months 
of school due to illnesses related to her tonsils, which were removed during the school year.  Both 
students participated in the language arts program and the math program.  Students were 
interviewed at the beginning and the end of the program.  One of the two focal students' parents 
was interviewed.  Pre- and post interviews were given to the students' two language arts teachers, 
Ms. Collins (a Caucasian female in early 30s who has taught elementary school for five years) and 
Ms. Hoff (a mid-twenties Caucasian female teacher who has one year of teaching experience as a 
substitute) who team taught the Language Arts class for all the students, and Ms. Klein (a Caucasian 
middle-aged woman who has taught for 15+ years.), a third of the students’ math teacher, including 
the two focal students (Note 14).   

Insights pertaining to the effects of this summer program on the authoring of the summer 
school student are drawn from the previously listed data sources. To provide additional support for 
these observations, direct quotes are included from the interviews and excerpts from program 
artifacts (such as the form letter from principals to parents) throughout the remainder of this article. 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            6 

This analysis followed traditional qualitative inquiry (Wolcott, 1994; Strauss, 1996; Graue & 
Walsh, 1998).  Field notes and interview transcripts were read and reread in order to identify relevant 
themes in the data, which were then coded using both external and internal codes (Graue & Walsh, 
1998).  External codes are codes that come out of my theoretical and conceptual perspectives about 
this research project (Graue & Walsh, 1998, p. 163).  Internal codes are codes that develop through 
my reading of the data (Graue & Walsh, 1998, p. 163).  For example, an external code was the 
teachers’ constructions of the students.  An internal code was the students’ identifying themselves as 
successful learners.  From these codes, the theme of providing the students with a chance to feel 
successful as learners was established.  These themes derive themselves from the relevant data, and 
they were read against the text in search for contradictory evidence (Wolcott, 1994; Strauss, 1996; 
Graue & Walsh, 1998).  From the memos developed in the analysis, narratives were written to 
describe the emerging themes (Graue & Walsh, 1998).  Finally, these narratives were analyzed 
against Bakhtin’s theoretical constructs of authoring and dialogic relationships in order to 
deconstruct the complexity of the dialogic processes that frame the student’s ability to construct 
one’s self as a learner.   
 
 

Results 
 
Opportunity 
 From the beginning, the intentions of this summer program were to provide the students 
with an opportunity to enhance their learning skills, e.g. the form letter from principals to parents.  
Because retaining students was not an issue, the majority of stakeholders (the administrators, 
teachers, parents, and students) did not express concern or anxiety as to what would happen over 
the course of the summer.    For example, the three teachers interviewed for this study saw the 
summer program as an opportunity for the students to gain more confidence and to maintain, if not 
improve, their academic skills.  Below, Ms. Klein’s statement exemplifies this relaxed attitude that 
the three interviewed teachers had at the beginning of the summer school program.  She saw this 
program as a time for students to build confidence and to foster more participation in the classroom 
discourse. 
 

What my image of summer school is is that it’s a more relaxed atmosphere.   
 The pace is a little slower.  We’re all feeling a little less pressured to  
 accomplish something that…  I don’t feel like I have to…  I don’t have to  
 finish this unit by this time and have an assessment because the report  
 card is coming or something like that…  And I think that’s real freeing  
 for a lot of these kids, especially from these kids who my assumption,  
 and the ones I know…  They weren’t big participants in their school year  
 math class, for example.  So I think they can feel more comfortable and  
 confident about participating than they would ordinarily.  So I think it’s a  
 pretty good match. (Ms. Klein, initial interview) 
 
Ms. Klein identifies this program as an opportunity for both the teacher and the student to build 
confidence and to enjoy participating in the school experience.  She and the other interviewed 
teachers frame the students within a relaxed atmosphere rather than under the auspices of salvation 
(Popkewitz, 1998) or failure.   



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    7 

 The recruiting letter for language arts teachers mirrors this idea of support for students.  It 
states: 
  
 [District’s name] will pilot [program’s name in bold face type] for rising  

5th graders from schools eligible for Title 1 programming who need additional  
and intensive instruction in reading and math to meet anticipated criteria for  
promotion and to be successful at the next level. (February 15, 2002) 

 
This document frames the students that the teachers would work with as needing support as they 
progress into the 5th grade.  The primary goal was to assist the students in becoming proficient at the 
next grade level. 
 Additionally, all three teachers interviewed at this program felt less pressure to perform or to 
meet curricular deadlines.  Rather than state that these students had to meet specific goals by a 
certain time, as demanded by a high-stakes intervention program, these teachers saw this 
intervention as a chance for these students to improve their academic and social skills at a pace that 
was not frustrating for the students.  For instance, Ms. Hoff’s comments reflect this concern in 
building the students’ skills. 
  
 Interviewer: What is the purpose behind this program? 

 
Ms. Hoff: I think to help these students… increase their reading ability.  I’m sort  

 of getting a sense that these are kids who would either not passing into the  
 5th grade or were really struggling in 5th grade if they didn’t have this  
 summer class.  So they really need to… improve, I think, upon their skills  
 they had coming into the reading, so they leave with perhaps more skills.  Or  
 just skills they might have had before but maybe they didn’t have  
 enough experience for kids so they become second nature.  Just to give  
 them a stronger base so that when they get into 5th grade, they’re not  
 struggling as much. 
 
Opportunity and experience underlay Ms. Hoff’s and the other teachers’ construction of what the 
program provides these students.  These teachers and the District artifacts define summer school as 
an opportunity rather than a necessity.  The teachers’ desires to at least maintain the students 
academic skills in a caring and low stress environment plays a critical role in shaping the dialogic 
relationships that exist between themselves, the students, and the program itself.  The teachers 
oriented their expectations of their students in such a way that the students’ needs drove the 
curriculum rather than meeting a specific performance standard, such as a cut score on a test. 
 
Student uncertainty 
 

Although the program’s teachers had a vision as to what was to take place over the course of 
the summer, the students who entered summer school were unsure as to what they would 
experience.  Below, Teri’s comments reflect this apprehension. 
 
Interviewer: Is this your first time in summer school? 
Teri:  Yeah. 
I:  Were you excited about coming? 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            8 

T:  Not really… 
I:  Why not? 
T:  Because I didn’t think it was going to be fun… 
I:  What did you think was going to happen? 
T:  Like we’d have to work really hard. 
I:  Okay…  What do you think you were going to learn this summer? 
T:  Like, stuff to help me read and do math. 
I:  What did your mom and dad tell you about summer school? (Note 15) 
T:  That it was going to be fun. 
 
By initially defining the summer program as place where she would work “really hard,” Teri assumed 
that summer school would mirror her previous experiences of schooling.  Whether or not high-
stakes are in play. Teri’s expectations mirror what most students think when they are told that they 
have to attend summer school.  
 
The program 
  
The participants’ statements and District documents authored the summer school student through 
the idea of improving a student’s reading and math skills.  This emphasis on improvement also 
appears in how these teachers define a successful summer program, which provides additional 
insight in how the authoritarian stakeholders in the program frame their expected responses from 
the students.  For example, Ms. Collin’s defines a successful program similarly to Ms. Hoff’s 
objective to improve the students’ reading skills.  She states: 
 
 If we end the summer with… close to the same amount of kids that started.   
 I think that will be a huge success.  Hmm…  (PAUSE)  If they can talk about  
 and demonstrate some of the strategies that we’ve been working on.  My big  
 goal is for them to read cover to cover while constantly questioning what they  
 read.  If they’re asking lots of questions when they read…  If they each have a 
 library card.  (Ms. Collins, initial interview) 
   
Ms. Collin’s goals for her students were tangible within the time span of the program.  Her 
intentions were to provide these students with the skills that successful readers possess—being an 
avid reader, using multiple strategies to make meaning or decode words, etc (Fountas & Pinnell, 
1996).  Ms. Collin’s, her colleague’s, and the program’s goals created relationships with the students 
that deemphasize achieving a single goal or test score while encouraging these students to develop 
multiple academic and social skills.  Helping students build academic skills rather than attempting to 
‘fix’ the students academic or social behaviors frame the teacher’s dialogic relationship with the 
student in a different light.     
  
The curriculum 
 
 The teachers, parents, and students interacted with the program’s curriculum.  In many ways, 
the teacher-implemented curriculum answered what the summer program’s expectations were for 
the students and parents.  Furthermore, the curriculum provided the students with an understanding 
as to what their teachers and the summer program would expect of them. 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    9 

 Although the curriculum played a large role with the interactions that took place in the 
school, the District did not design the summer program with a standardized curriculum or curricular 
method in mind (e.g. Direct Instruction (Engelmann & Osborn, 1999)).  Additionally, the District 
did not provide the teachers with specific goals or targets to reach.  The District subject area 
coordinators made curriculum suggestions and provided support to the teachers through meetings 
and providing subject specific materials.  For example, the math teachers were part of a grant with 
the local university where they worked with a District math coordinator and university professors in 
developing instructional practices that fostered the understanding of math concepts rather than fact 
based knowledge--using instructional models such as cognitively guided instruction (Carpenter & 
Fennema, 1999).  The summer school math teachers from both sites met weekly and discussed what 
content they thought vital to teach to their students.  The literacy teachers met sporadically with a 
literacy resource person from the District and planned instruction at their respective sites rather than 
as a team.  The literacy teachers were asked to use what the District administrators defined as a 
balanced literacy approach and to emphasize the use of non-fiction texts in their instruction. 
 The absence of clear curricular requirements is seen in the statements of Ms. Hoff. 
 
Interviewer: What were you told were the goals for the summer program and the kids? 
 
Ms. Hoff:  I think in the summer, it’s done a little differently than during the school 

year.  It’s definitely more laid back in the sense that we’re not really given clear 
expectations of… “This is what you had to do in your classroom.  This is what it 
should look like.”  We set it up to look like and to work with something we were 
comfortable with.  The primary expectation that I got was the fact that these kids 
need to read.  They need to have an opportunity to read during the day.  They need 
to be able to strengthen their skills.  (initial interview) 

 
The script by which the teachers interacted with their students depended upon their professional 
judgment.  This emphasis of their instruction was on providing the students with opportunity to use 
and maintain the skills they already possessed (Ms. Klein makes similar comments when discussing 
the math expectations).  For example, in the languages arts program, reading instruction and book 
selection focused on the students’ abilities as determined by a Basic Reading Inventory (Johns, 
1997).  Thus, how the various students were addressed by the curriculum depended upon the 
teacher’s professional knowledge of math or literacy development and how that teacher approached 
using this knowledge with her students.  This variation provided the students with the opportunity 
to answer the teacher-generated curriculum in a multitude of ways, and since the teachers themselves 
decided upon the curricular outcomes, this experience provided the students with a more 
individualized experience.   

When discussing curriculum opportunities, Ms. Klein argues that no one curriculum would 
work for such a program.     
 
Ms. Klein:  I think more than anything we know that there is no curriculum that really does a 

good job for this kind of thing.   No one curriculum.  (Final interview) 
 
Thus, the interactions that took place in the classroom between the student and the teacher not only 
varied due to the teacher’s personality but also through the varied curricular experiences the children 
received.  The authoring of the student was not only dependent upon the individuals involved with 
the program, but also with the classrooms instructional materials and practices.  The absence of 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            10 

specific curricular goals or a teacher-scripted curriculum provided an opportunity for the teachers to 
frame their interactions with students themselves rather than as the result of District or state 
policymakers’ demands. 

This program centered on providing individualized learning experiences that offered 
students the opportunity to maintain and even enhance their literacy and math skills.  The summer 
school students interacted with these teachers’ expectations, the curriculum, and their families 
various discourses, all of which generated various experiences and understandings as to what it 
means to be a student in this summer school program.  Teachers and students addressed and 
answered each other in academic relationships that centered on their personal needs rather than an 
outside authority’s wants or demands. The teacher’s framing of the students was based on personal 
relationships and personal interests more so than on outside constructs of what it means to be a 
fifth grade student.  However, the teachers did implement a curriculum that they thought was 
necessary for students to be successful in the fifth grade.  The discussions in the next section outline 
whether the teachers thought this approach was successful in preparing these students for the next 
grade level. 
 
The program effects   
 
 At the end of this summer school program, the majority of the program participants felt a 
sense of relief and accomplishment.  In particular, students saw themselves as being ready for the 
next grade level, and the teachers stated that students were better prepared for the upcoming year.   
For example, Ms. Collins, a former fifth grade teacher, saw the students as prepared for the next 
grade level. 
 
Interviewer: How do you think these guys are ready for 5th grade? 
Ms. Collins: (PAUSE)  Hmm…  I think…  (PAUSE)  I think they’ll be fine for 5th grade.  
I:  Can you think of any way they’re not prepared for 5th grade? 
Ms. C:  No.  I think they’re really eager, all of them. 
I:  You’re a 5th grade teacher so… 
Ms. C:  Right, right.  I think they’re really eager.  I think they’ll do well. 
 

Ms. Hoff discussed the children’s future in the context of the overall program and saw the 
students as being better prepared for next year. 
  
Ms. Hoff: I think all the kids made improvements in different areas.  They read more 

material, built some new strategies for reading and I think will be stronger going into 
next year than if they had not done this program.  (Ms. Hoff, post interview) 

 
Ms. Hoff believed the students are more prepared for the next grade, and all of the teachers believed 
that without the summer program the students would not be as prepared for the 5th grade. 
 The quantitative data that measured student achievement is suspect due to the large number 
of absences and a failure to have pre and post data for several students.  The student’s BRI scores 
exemplify this problem.  For the students whom attended the program for 20 or more days (n=34), 
22 students have pre and post test BRI scores.  For 13 students there is not data because they 
attended the program for 19 or fewer days.  Of the 22 students who did attend a majority of the 
program,  

• 12 students increased their score by one grade level 
• 9 students stayed at the same grade level 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    11 

• 1 student dropped a grade level (see Table 1 for details)   
 

Table1 
Basic Reading Inventory Scores 

 
Student North or  

South Side 
# of days in  
attendance 

Pre-program 
BRI level 

Post program 
BRI level 

1 South 24 5* 6 
2 South 23 - 3 
3 South 27 5 6 
4 South 23 - - 
5 South 22 5 6 
Teri South 28 4 5 
7 South 27 4 4 
8 South 28 2 2 
9 South 27 3 4 
Steven South 27 5 5 
11 South 27 3 3 
12 South 17 3 4 
13 South 25 4 5 
14 North 29 6 6 
15 North 27 5 6 
16 North 9 - - 
17 North 6 - - 
18 North 14 - - 
19 North 18 - 6 
20 North 2 - - 
21 North 18 6 6 
22 North 21 3 4 
23 North 26 3 4 
24 North 13 - - 
25 North 23 5 5 
26 North 12 - - 
27 North 28 - 4 
28 North 28 4 3 
29 North 29 6 6 
30 North 20 - - 
31 North 21 - 6 
32 North 15 - - 
33 North 28 4 4 
34 North 8 - - 
35 North 4 - - 
36 North 27 - 4 
37 North 27 - 6 
38 North 29 4 5 
39 North 21 - 3 
40 North 22 - - 
41 North 10 - - 
42 North 28 3 4 
43 North 27 4 4 
44 North 29 - 5 
45 North 23 - 4 
46 North 23 3 4 
47 North 23 4 - 

*According to Johns (1997), these numbers represent the grade level at which the student is reading. 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            12 

 
 Turning to the comments of students who did attend the program, one finds that those who 
participated in the summer program found the program to be worthwhile.  For example, the two 
focal children felt that they gained skills in reading and math that would prepare them for the fifth 
grade. 
 
Teri:   Yeah.  I know…  I learned some new stuff about reading… 
Interviewer: Like… 
T: Like… to think about every paragraph.  To stop and think after a paragraph. 
I:  What about math?  What did you learn in math? 
T:  I learned some tricks for plus nines. 
 
Teri gained academic skills that made her feel more confident in math and reading, and she felt that 
this knowledge would make her more successful as a student. 
 Additionally, for Steven, he saw his time in the program as being fun and productive rather 
than sitting at home watching TV, which he found to be boring. 
 
Interviewer: So what was summer school like for you this year? 
Steven:  Fun. 
I:  Why was it fun? 
S:  It’s boring at my house. 
I:  It’s boring at your house so you’d rather be here? 
S:  Yes. 
I:  If you were at home, what would you be doing? 
S:  Watching TV. 
I:  And you’d rather be in school? 
S:  Yes. 
I:  So what do you think…  So you like coming to school because it’s fun…  

Why is it fun? 
S:  I like having work. 
 
 
 In regards to all the student participants, half of those who responded to the end of the 
program surveys (n=30; 20 North side (N), 10 South side (S)) rated the experience as either great or 
good (Note 16). 
 

• 6 or 20% (5 N, 1 S) thought it was great 
• 12 or 40% (10 N, 2 S) thought it was good 
• 9 or 30% (4 N, 5 S) thought it was fair 
• 1 or 3% (1 S) thought it was bad 
• 2 or 6% (1 N, 1 S) thought is was horrible. 

  
 From the parent’s perspective, the program was beneficial.  For example, Teri’s mother felt 
that Teri was prepared for reading but not sure about math. 
 
Interviewer: Now that summer school is almost over, how do you think she’s ready for 5th grade? 
 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    13 

Teri’s Mom: She seems to be, I mean, with the reading for sure.  But like I said, with   
 the math, I still don’t know. 
 
Teri’s mother did not know where her daughter’s math skills were because of the lack of contact 
between the school and the parents.   She knew about Teri’s literacy experience because she picked 
Teri up from school every day, which provided her with the opportunity to talk with Ms. Collins and 
Ms. Hoff on a regular basis.   

What’s interesting about this is that the parents understanding of their children’s experiences 
in summer school came solely from their interactions with their children.  Parents did not receive 
notes, report cards, or updates on their students’ progress over the course of the summer.  Yet, out 
of those 11 who sent back a survey, all 11 parents (100%) stated that if they had another child in 4th 
grade that was invited to participate in the program that they would let that child go.  Additionally, a 
majority of the parents felt that their children gained skills and confidence in the academic subjects 
the program covered.  For example, eight of the parents (73%) believed that their children became 
better readers.  However, only 5 of the parents (45%) believed that their children became better at 
math. Thus, these families’ judgments about the program were made solely through what their 
children told them, and whatever information was shared was evidently enough to convince them 
that the overall program was worthwhile. 
 This student support of the program is exemplified in Teri’s comments. 
 
Interviewer: Okay.  If you were going to describe summer school to one of your 

friends, what would you say? 
Teri:  It was fun and… I learned a lot…  I don’t know. 
I:  Was it easy? 
T:  Sort of. 
I:  Sort of.  It wasn’t too hard? 
T:  No. 
I: Was the school year harder for you than summer school or was it about the same? 
T:  About the same. 
 
For Teri, the program was similar in difficulty to the regular school year experience, and she felt that 
she learned quite a bit in her experiences during the summer.  Thus, rather than entering the fifth 
grade unsure about her skills or preparedness, Teri, as well as her mother, felt she would have a 
successful year.   

Steven’s comments echo this sentiment 
 
Interviewer: Do you feel like you’re ready for the 5th grade? 
Steven:  Yes. 
C:  How are you ready? 
S:  I don’t know.  Hmm…  I’m good at math and stuff. 
C:  Do you think you’re ready for 5th grade math? 
S:  Yes. 
 
Rather than seeing themselves as students on the brink of failure, these students felt that they were 
ready for the next level of schooling.  Although Steven and Teri felt prepared for the next level, this 
does not mean that all the students would submit themselves to this experience again.  In fact, in the 
end of the program survey the children were asked if th ey were given the choice to go to summer 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            14 

school again, what would they choose.  Six or 20% (2 N, 4 S) would choose to go again, and twenty-
two children or 73% (17 N, 5 S) would choose not to go again.  
 In examining how these various discourses speak to each other and across each other, one 
immediately recognizes that there is a consistent dialogue of overall success for those who 
participated in the program provided the students with the opportunity to develop a positive self-
image as a student.  However, the issue of attendance causes (see Note 13) one to question whether 
these positive self-constructions would exist if all students who were asked to attend participated in 
the program—an issue of internal validity.  Their absence might be a statement of failure or simple a 
lack of interest in the program.  For those students who did choose to participate and stay in the 
program, there was an underlying theme of success within their personal constructions of 
themselves as students. 
 
 

Discussion 
 

The construction of the summer school student is the interaction of multiple discourses, e.g. 
the teachers, families, etc.  The student’s authoring of herself as a student reflects this multiplicity of 
other’s words.  Thereby, examining the data above provides insight about the complexity that exists 
in attempting to identify the effects of a summer school program on the student’s construction of 
one’s self as a learner.  However, the absence of those who chose not to participate speaks just as 
loudly as those who were present for the program.  Additionally, according to Bakhtin, “Life by its 
very nature is dialogic,” and this construction of existence points to the importance of how the 
participants’ utterance spoke to each other and across various themes (Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293).  
Recognizing the influence of these interactions between the participants sheds light on the influence 
of such exchanges on the opportunities for student’s to author themselves as learners.   
 From the beginning, the purpose of this program was quite different from a high-stakes 
standards-based accountability summer school program.  Teacher recommendations and 
student/family participation determined student enrollment.  Consequences were not a part of the 
equation, and a single test score or oth er criteria did not affect student entry.  Prescribed curricula 
were not a part of the program.  Promotion to the fifth grade was not an issue, and thus, the general 
framework in which these dialogic interactions took place illuminates the transition from a 
‘traditional’ summer intervention program to a ‘high-stakes’ intervention program.  The teachers and 
program administrators’ utterances created an authorial discourse that centered on support rather 
than preventing failure.  Students were not preoccupied with whether or not they would enter the 
fifth grade, which provided them with the opportunity to focus their summer experience on 
improving their own skills and learning. 
 However, to state that the program’s emphasis on opportunity provided students with an 
environment in which they could develop their academic skills and gain confidence in their abilities 
underestimates the complexity of the dialogic interactions that exist within the authoring process.  
The data support the argument that the program was successful in providing students with the 
opportunity to develop in a positive manner.  How positive this opportunity was depends on the 
students.  For Teri and Steven, they felt that they were successful in the program, and they felt 
prepared for the next grade level.  For those who chose not to participate in or left the program, 
their level of success was not as high those who chose to continue to participate in the program.  
Possibly, those students who decided not to participate felt that they were already prepared for the 
5th grade.  Nonetheless, the absence of high-stakes and program emphasis on support and skill 
building created a schooling environment that offered students the opportunity to develop 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    15 

themselves as students in various dialogic relationships that supported their growth in terms of 
where they were as learners rather than in response to a particular cut score or other performance 
standard.   
 
 

Implications 
 

To begin, this program demonstrates that when the learning environment within schools 
centers on opportunity rather than the prevention of failure, all members of the community still 
work towards the same goals.  Additionally, this summer program validates that spaces can exist for 
the struggling student to develop her skills in order to be more successful in schooling (Note 17).  
However, as this program demonstrates, such spaces typically exist outside the confines of the high-
stakes accountability movement.  Nonetheless, there are several lessons that can be learned from this 
‘low-stakes’ summer program.   

 
Authoritarian discourses, anticipated responses, and dialogic positioning affect students’ 

perceptions of themselves as learners.  Policymakers, schools, administrators, and teachers must 
consider how the policies and programs they create alter the complex dialogic relationships of 
schooling.  Any type of stake shapes the opportunities for the student and her/his family, 
classmates, and teachers.  Although this study represents a small sample of students who attended a 
particular summer school program, it demonstrates the power of and complexity in defining 
performance.  Thus, high-stakes policies must expand their definition of success and recognize that 
for students, parents, and teachers school success is more than meeting a specific performance 
criterion.  Steven’s defining a good student as one who behaves well in class exemplifies this point.  
Additionally, Steven’s example highlights how students are cognizant of their strengths and 
weaknesses in schooling.  The prescriptive nature of high-stakes accountability policies create a 
situation where success is defined by a single or limited set of criteria.  This restricted definition of 
success creates a dialogic relationship for the student that stifles the possibility for that student to 
author his/her learning experiences as being positive.  The possibility to create opportunity for 
change is overridden by a “catch-up” mentality in order to ensure promotion. 
 The data above also highlight the importance for the various levels of public schooling to 
recognize their role in authoring the student.  Whether stakes are high or low students and families 
internalize, as well as, react to the discourses that address them when they enter a school.  High-
stakes policies center around success and failure, but even a ‘low-stake’ environment creates a 
dialogic relationship that affects the student.  How schools, administrators, and teachers interact 
with their student population plays a significant role in how students author themselves as learners, 
and stakeholders need to remember the importance of these interactions when implementing 
policies that directly affect students and their families. 
 Finally, within K-12 schooling, there will always be stakes that determine whether a student 
should attend summer school.  The symbolic power (Ellwein, 1987; Ellwein & Glass, 1989) and the 
spectacle (Edelman, 1985; Edelman, 1988; Smith, Miller-Kahn, Heinecke, & Jarvis, 2004) that such 
policies create ensure their position in the landscape of education reform (e.g. the New York City 
Public Schools recent implementation of a 3rd grade promotion policy).  Additionally, the recent shift 
in government towards a neo-liberal/managerial role in education which provides supplemental 
education services outside of the school (e.g. No Child Left Behind Act) causes one to question 
whether intervention programs such as the one I observed can exist in the current education reform 
landscape (Clarke & Newman, 1994; Apple, 2001) (Note 18).   



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            16 

Nevertheless, how states, districts, or individual schools set those stakes plays a key factor in 
framing the dialogic relationships that exists between the program and the student and her family.  
The more prescriptive and authoritarian the system, the less likely the student will be able to escape 
the notion of failure from her authoring of herself as a student.  This idea of failure embedded in 
high-stakes policies creates a more difficult task for school personnel and families to assist students 
in constructing themselves as successful learners.  Therefore, systems of accountability should base 
their decisions on several criteria rather than a single indicator (e.g., Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Baker, 
Linn, Herman, & Koretz, 2002; Linn 2003) (Note 19).   

Although eliminating the construct of failure from schooling is nearly impossible, education 
policymakers must consider whether this is truly an issue of systemic failure (e.g. Berliner & Biddle, 
1995; Bracey, 2002), and if so, they should consider placing this failure construct on multiple actors, 
including their own selves, administrators, teachers, and the curriculum rather than on the individual 
student.  Such a positioning frames programs such as summer school in a very different light, 
creating an environment where the intervention becomes as a different type of instruction rather 
than a form of punishment.  

 
 
 

Notes 
 
1 See http://www.cps.edu/Promotion.html for an example of the district’s promotion policies. 
2 Researchers (including the researchers at the Consortium on Chicago School Research) have 
consistently found that retention offers no positive effects for the retained students.  In fact, 
retention typically results in lower achievement and higher dropout rates for retained students in 
comparison to their peers (see Holmes & Matthews, 1984; Labaree, 1984; Shepard & Smith, 1986; 
Holmes, 1989; Meisels, 1992; Reynolds, 1992; Rumberger, 1995; Reynolds & Temple, 1997; McCoy 
& Reynolds, 1999; Zill, 1999; Alexander, Entwisle, & Kabbani 2000; Graue & DiPerna, 2000).  For 
example, using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, Rumberger (1995) 
found that at the individual level retention is the single most powerful predictor of student drop out.  
Retained students were four times more likely to drop out, even after Rumberger controlled for 
student background and school measures. 
3 According to the Chicago Public Schools’ policy, a student’s score on the ITBS determines 
whether s/he is promoted to the next grade level in grades 3, 6, and 8. 
4 Less than 60 percent of retained third and sixth graders in 1998 and 1999 were able to raise their 
test scores to the promotional cutoff (Nagaoka & Roderick, 2004).  For many students, this is the 
fourth time they have taken the grade-level test—2 times during the school year and 2 times during 
the summer (Roderick et al., 2000, p. 10).    
5 Agencies, such as the U. S. Department of Education (1999), researchers such as Reynolds and 
Temple (1997), Darling-Hammond (1998), and McCoy and Reynolds (1999) and professional 
organizations such as Phi Delta Kappa (McCay, 2001) recognize the dilemmas states and school 
districts face with this issue of social promotion.  These organizations and authors recommend that 
states and school districts consider such measures as strengthening learning opportunities in the 
classroom (e.g., tutors, well-trained teachers, reduced class size), providing intervention services at 
early age (e.g., comprehensive early childhood programs) extending the amount of learning time 
(e.g., after-school, summer school, and year-round schooling), and holding schools accountable for 
performance (e.g., rewards and sanctions) (Reynolds & Temple, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 1998; 
McCoy & Reynolds, 1999; U. S. Dept. of Education, 1999; McCay, 2001). 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    17 

6 All references used to identify individuals or institutions are pseudonyms. 
7 This study specifically centered on the fourth grade program, which was a half-day program that 
lasted for six weeks. 
8 All students in grades 4, 8, and 10 in the state of Wisconsin are to take the Wisconsin Knowledge 
and Concepts Exam (WKCE).  There are four levels of performance on the WKCE: minimal, basic, 
proficient, and advanced. 
9 These criteria were sent to the principals of the District’s Title 1 elementary schools from the 
director of teaching and learning and the math and language arts coordinators. 
10 Throughout my discussion of Bakhtinian theory and the student’s self-construction in the 
dialogic process, I am not using Bakhtinian theory to untangle the psychological process of identify 
formulation.  Rather, my emphasis is on the opportunities that are created in the dialogic process for 
the student to view one’s self as a successful learner.  Thus, if the opportunities for the student exist 
to identify her/his self as a successful learner, what happens?   The psychological process of identity 
formulation is beyond the scope of my work, but there are theorists, such as Wertsch (1991), who 
link Bakhtinian theory to the psychological process (e.g. Wertsch connects Bakhtinian theory with 
Vygotsky’s (e.g., 1978) work).   
11 As Bakhtin (1984) notes, words can clothe the individual: “. . . the clothing of language, a new 
mode for wearing one’s one body, one’s embodiment” (p. 291). 
12 All surveys, interviews, and student writing activities were voluntary, and therefore, not all 
student and their families participated.  Additionally, only students who participated in the language 
arts program and their families were surveyed.   See Appendix 2 for copies of the surveys. 
13 The attrition of students throughout the program was a major issue for the school district.  For 
example, only forty-seven of the original sixty-two students who signed up for the program attended 
summer school.  Of the forty-seven students who did attend, only thirty-four students attended the 
program for twenty or more days. 
14 All three teachers were licensed by the state of Wisconsin to teach at the elementary school level. 
15 At the time that I asked this question, I knew that Teri lived in a home with a mother and father. 
16 Due to the small response size, I am not making any claims for statistical significance with these 
responses, and because the program’s retention rates were poor, I recognized that the survey data is 
biased.  However, the data provides support to the comments and statements made by the 
individuals interviewed for this study. 
17 My findings provide further qualitative support to the work of Cooper et al. (2000). 
18 Additionally, are such intervention programs dependent upon the dire consequences these 
policies create in order to receive funding?   
19 I want to thank Bernardo Hoes, Beth Graue, Denise Oen, Robin Fox, and Lucinda Heimer for 
their comments and suggestions to improve the various drafts of this article. 
 
 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            18 

References 
 
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Kabbani, N. (2000).   Grade retention, social  
 promotion, and 'third way' alternatives.  The CEIC Review, 9, 18-19.   
 Retrieved March 23, 2004, from 
 http://www.edrs.com/Webstore/Download2.cfm?ID=470459 
 
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2001).  Schools, achievement, and  

inequality: A seasonal perspective.  Education, Evaluation, & Policy Analysis, 23  
171-191. 

 
Allensworth, E. (2004).  Ending social promotion: Dropout rates in Chicago after  
 implementation of the eighth-grade promotion gate.  Chicago, IL :  Consortium of   

Chicago School Research.  Retrieved April 11,  
 2004, from http://www.consortium-chicago.org/publications/pdfs/p69.pdf 
 
Apple, M. W. (2001).  Educating the “Right” way: Markets, standards, God, and  
 inequity.  New York: RoutledgeFalmer. 
 
Baker, E. L., Linn, R. L., Herman, J. L., & Koretz, D (2002, Winter).  Standards for  educational 
accountability systems.  (CRESST, Policy Brief No. 5).  Retrieved  November 1, 2003, from 
 http://cresst96.cse.ucla.edu/products/newsletters/polbrf54.pdf. 
 
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981).  The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. (C.  
 Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.), (M. Holquist, Trans.).  Austin: University of  Texas Press. 
 
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984).  Problems of Doestoevsky's poetics. (C. Emerson, Ed.), (C. 
 Emerson, Trans.).  Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 
 
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986).  Speech genres and other late essays.  (C. Emerson & M.  Holquist, Eds.). (V. W. 

McGee, Trans.).  University of Texas Press Slavic Series,  no. 8. Austin, TX: University 
of Texas Press.  

 
Bakhtin, M. M. (1990).  Art and answerability.  (M. Holquist & V. Liapunov, Eds.).  (V. 
 Liapunov, Trans.).  (K. Brostrom, Supplement Trans.).  University of Texas Press  Slavic 
Series, no. 9. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 
 
Bakhtin, M. M. (1993).  Toward a philosophy of the act.  (M. Holquist & V. Liapunov, 
 Eds). (V. Liapunov, Trans.). University of Texas Press Slavic Series, no. 10. 
 Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 
 
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995).  The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and 

the attack on America’s public schools.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 
 
Bracey, G. W. (2002).  War against America’s public schools.  Privatizing schools,  

commercializing education.  Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 
 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    19 

Carpenter, T. P., & Fennema, E. (1999).  Children's Mathematics : Cognitively guided  instruction.  
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 
 
Clarke, J, & Newman, J. (1994).  The managerial state: Power, politics, and ideology in  
 the remaking of social welfare.  Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 
 
Cooper H., Charlton K., Valentine J. C., & Muhlenbruck, L. (2000).  Making the most of  

summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review.  Monographs of the  
Society for Research in Child Development, 65. 

 
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998).  Alternatives to grade retention.  The  

School Administrator, 55, 18-21. 
 
Edelman, M. (1985).  The symbolic use of politics.  Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois  

Press. 
 
Edelman, M. (1988).  Constructing the political spectacle.  Chicago: University of  Chicago Press. 
 
Ellwein, M. C. (1987).  Standards of competence: A multi-site case study of school  
 reform.  UMI Dissertation Services.  (UMI No. 8716249). 
 
Ellwein, M. C., & Glass, G. V. (1989).  Ending social promotion in Waterford:  
 Appearances and reality.  In L. S. Shepard & M. L. Smith, (Eds.).  Flunking  
 grades: research and policies on retention (pp. 151-173).  New York: Falmer  
 Press. 
 
Engelmann, S., & Osborn, J. (1999).  Language for learning.  Columbus, OH:  SRA/McGraw-Hill. 
 
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996).  Guided reading: Good first teaching for all  
 children.  Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 
 
Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998).  Studying children in context: Theories, methods,  
 and ethics.  Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 
 
Graue, M. E., & DiPerna, J. C. (2000). The gift of time:  Who gets redshirted and  
 retained and what are the outcomes? American Educational Research Journal,  37, 509-534. 
  
Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.) (1999).  High stakes: Testing for tracking,  

promotion, and graduation.  Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 
 
Holmes, C. T., (1989).  Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. 

In L. S. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.) Flunking grades: research and policies on  
 Retention (pp. 16-33).  New York: Falmer Press. 
 
Holmes, C. T., & Matthews, K. M. (1984).  The effects of nonpromotion of elementary  

and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis.  Review of Educational Research, 54, 225-236. 
 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            20 

Holquist, M. (1990).  Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world.  New York: Routledge. 
 
Johns, J. L. (1997).  Basic reading inventory: pre-primer through grade twelve & early  literacy assessments.  

Dubuque, Iowa : Kendall/Hunt Publishing. 
 
Labaree, D. F. (1984).  Setting the standard: Alternative policies for student promotion.   

Harvard Educational Review, 54 (1), 67-87. 
 
Linn, R. L. (2003).  Accountability: Responsibility and reasonable expectations.   
 
McCay, E. (Ed.) (2001).  Moving beyond retention and social promotion.  Bloomington,  
 IN: Phi Delta Kappa International. 
 
McCoy, A. R., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999).  Grade retention and school performance: An  
 extended investigation.  Journal of School Psychology, 37, 273-298. 
 
Meisels, S. J. (1992).  Doing harm by doing good: Iatrogenic effects of early childhood  

enrollment and promotion policies.  Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 155-74. 
 
Nagaoka, J., & Roderick, M. (2004).  Ending Social Promotion: The effects of  
 retention. Chicago, IL: Consortium of Chicago School Research.   Retrieved  

April 11, 2004, from http://www.consortium- chicago.org/publications/pdfs/p70.pdf 
 
Popkewitz, T. S. (1998).  Struggling for the soul: The politics of schooling and the  
 construction of the teacher.  New York: Teachers College Press. 
   
Reynolds, A. J. (1992).  Grade retention and school adjustment: An explanatory analysis.  Educational 

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 101-121. 
 
Reynolds, A., & Temple, J. (1997, September 17).  Grade retention doesn’t work.  Education Week.  

Retrieved March 25, 2004, from http://www.edweek.org 
   
 Reynolds. A.J., Temple, J.A, Robertson, D.L., Mann E.A. (2001).  Long-term Effects of an Early 

Childhood Intervention on Educational Achievement and Juvenile Arrest:   A 15 -year 
Follow-up of Low-Income Children in Public Schools.  Retrieved February 10, 2004, from 
htttp://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/cbaexecsum4.html 

 
Roderick, M., Bryk, A. S., Jacob, B. A., Easton, J. Q., & Allensworth E. (1999).  Ending  
 social promotion: Results from the first two years.  Consortium on Chicago  School Research: 
Chicago, IL. 
 
Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., Bacon, J., & Easton, J. Q. (2000).  Update: Ending social  
 promotion.  Passing, retention, and achievement trends among promoted and  
 retained students, 1995-1999.  Consortium on Chicago School Research:  Chicago, IL. 
 
Rumberger, R. W. (1995).  Dropping out of middle school: A multi-level analysis of  
 students and school.  American Educational Research Journal, 32, 582-625. 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    21 

Shepard, L., & Smith, M. L. (1986).  Synthesis of research on school readiness and 
kindergarten retention.  Educational Leadership, 44, 78-86. 

 
Smith, M. L., Miller-Kahn L., Heinecke, W., & Jarvis, P. F. (2004).  Political spectacle  
 and the fate of American schools.  New York: RoutledgeFalmer.  
 
Stauss, L. S. (1996).  Qualitative analysis for social scientists.  Cambridge MA:  
 Cambridge University Press. 
 
United States Department of Education (1999).  Taking responsibility for ending 
  social promotion.  Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education. 
 
United States Department of Education, (2002).  No child left behind: Reauthorization of  
 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  Department of Education:  
 http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/index.html. 
 
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).  Mind in society: The development of higher psychological  

processes.  (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.).   
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.   

 
Wertsch, J. V. (1991).  Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.   Cambridge 
MA: Harvard University Press. 
 
Wolcott, H. F. (1994).  Transforming qualitative data: description, analysis, and  interpretation.  

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 
 
Zill, N. (1999).  Promoting educational equity and excellence in kindergarten.  In R. C.  
 Pianta and M. J. Cox (Eds.) The transition to kindergarten (pp. 67-105).   Baltimore: Paul H. 

Brookes Publishing Co. 
 

 
About the Author   
Christopher Brown 
The University of Texas at Austin 
Department of Curriculum and Instruction 
1 University Station D5700 
Austin, TX 78712-0379 
Office: (512) 232-2288 
Email: cpbrown@mail.utexas.edu 
 
Christopher Brown is an assistant professor of Curriculum and Instruction at The University of 
Texas at Austin.   His recently conducted a study that used Bakhtinian theory to examine the 
formulation and implementation of Wisconsin’s No Social Promotion statutes as a case study of 
standards-based accountability.  His research interests include the intersection of education policy, 
curriculum, and instruction, standards-based accountability and assessment, early childhood 
education, and elementary education. 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            22 

 
Appendix 1 
 
<Date> 
 
Dear Parent: 
 
There are still nine weeks left in the 2001-2002 school year and we are continuing to work very hard 
with your child to help him/her make the gains necessary for success in the 5th grade.  However, if 
we are not able to help your child make these gains by the end of the school year, your child will 
have the opportunity to participate in an exciting learning opportunity this summer.  We want you to 
know about this opportunity now so you can make summer plans for your child. 
 
The District will have a six-week program for students at our school who completing the 4th grade 
need additional instruction in mathematics or reading to be more successful in 5th grade.  The 
[program’s name in bold typeface] will be June 17-July 26, 8:00 –12:15 p. m.  In the [program’s 
name] your child will work with a teacher on improving either mathematics or reading or both.  If 
your child needs instruction in only one of those classes, s/he will also be able to take one of the 
[program’s name] enrichment summer school classes. 
 
The [program’s name in bold face type] is provided at no charge.  Transportation to and from the 
[program’s name in bold face type] also will be provided at no cost to you.  All you need to do is fill 
out the attached form to tell us that you are interested in your child participating in the [program’s 
name in bold face type] and then, if we are able to enroll your child, make sure your child attends 
every day. 
 
I hope that you will arrange your summer plans so that your child can enroll in the [program’s name 
in bold face type] if he or she is eligible.  I think the [program’s name] offers a wonderful 
opportunity for your child to get the extra instruction he or she needs.  Your child’s teacher or 
another staff person from (name of school) will call you soon to talk with you about the [program’s 
name in bold face type].  If you have any other questions, please call me. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
School Principal 
Phone Number: 
 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    23 

 
Appendix 2 
 
Student pre-[program’s name] Survey 
Circle the word or number that best answers the question: 
 
1.  Are you a (circle one)?  Boy   Girl  
 
2. How old are you?      7 8 9 10 11 12 
 
3. At which school did you attend fourth grade? 
 
4. Have you ever repeated a grade before?    Yes      No     If yes, which one?______ 
 
5. How many brothers and sisters do you have all together? 0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
6 Are any of your brothers or sisters in summer school?    Yes   No  If yes, How many?_______  
 
7. During the school year, where did you go after school? (circle the one you did most) 
childcare     came home     after school program     went to a friend's house     stayed w/ a relative 
 
8.  During the school year, how many hours a day did you read (not including school)?    

0 less than 1   1 2 3 4        5 6 
 
9. During the school year, how many hours a day did you watch TV or play video games?   

0 less than 1  1 2 3 4 5 6 
 
10. How many hours a day did you spend doing homework in the 4th grade? 

0 less than 1  1 2 3 4 5 6 
 
11. Outside of school, whom do you usually play with (circle one)?  Alone   A friend    A relative 
 
12. What was your favorite part of 4th grade? (circle one) 
Reading   Math   Social Studies   Science   Music   Art    P.E.   Lunch  Computers  Recess 
 
13. What is your least favorite part of 4th grade? (circle one) 
Reading   Math   Social Studies   Science   Music   Art    P.E.   Lunch  Computers  Recess 
 
14. My 4th grade teacher was (circle all that apply) 
Helpful  Caring     Smart Strict      Fun         Boring      Hard to understand  
 
15. I got along with my 4th grade teacher this year. (Circle one) Yes   No 
 
16. Rate your work in the 4th grade.  It was . . . (circle one) 
 Horrible Poor  Okay  Pretty good     The best   
 
17. When I do my homework, I usually (circle one) 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            24 

do a good job    do a bad job    get confused   forget to do it      need someone to help me 
 
 
18. When I take a test, I usually (circle one) 
do a good job     do an okay job      do a bad job     get confused      cheat on the test 
 
19. I feel that I am ready to go to the 5th grade (circle one)   Yes          No       Not sure 
 
20.  Who first told you that you had to go to summer school?(circle one)  Parent        Teacher   
 
21. Is this your first time in summer school?    Yes  No 
 
22. Do you want to be in summer school? (circle one)    Yes          No 
 
23.  I am going to summer school because . . . (circle all that apply) 
 I want to go     My parents want me to go     My teacher wants me to go       

I want to take an enrichment course        I don't know  
 
24. I need help in these subjects (circle all that apply). 
Reading   Math  Social Studies  Science Art Music 
 
25.  In summer school, I think I will (circle all that apply) 
Read    Do Math Play games Have homework        Take tests      Do worksheets 
 
26.  In summer school, I do not want to (circle all that apply) 
Read    Do Math Play games Have homework        Take tests      Do worksheets 
 
27. If I were not in summer school, I would be (circle one) 
At home with my family    At a camp      At child care     With a relative     With a friend 
 
Please write answers to these questions as best you can. (If you need more space, you can 
write on the back of the page.) 
1. Why are you in summer school? 
 
 
 
  
 
2. What do you hope to learn in summer school? 
 
 
 
 
 
3. How would you rank yourself as a student? (circle one) 

Horrible Poor  Okay  Pretty good  The best 
• Why? 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    25 

 
Student post [program’s name] Survey 
Circle the word or number that best answers the question: 
 
1.  Are you a (circle one)?       Boy   Girl  
 
2. How old are you?      7 8 9 10 11 12 
 
3. At which school did you attend fourth grade? 
  
4. Have you ever repeated a grade before?    Yes      No     If yes, which one?______ 
 
5. How many brothers and sisters do you have all together? 0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
6 Are any of your brothers or sisters in summer school?    Yes   No  If yes, How many?_______  
 
7. During the summer, where did you go after school? (circle the one you did most) 
child care     came home     after school program     went to a friend's house     stayed w/ a relative 
 
8.  During summer school, how many hours a day did you read (not including school)?    

0 less than 1   1 2 3 4        5 6 
 
9. During the summer, how many hours a day did you watch TV or play video games?   

0 less than 1  1 2 3 4 5 6 
 
10. How many hours a day did you spend doing homework this summer? 

0 less than 1  1 2 3 4 5 6 
 
11.Outside of school, who did you usually play with (circle one)? Alone    A friend      A relative 
 
12. Was this your first time in summer school?    yes  no 
 
13. Overall, how would you rate your summer school experience? (circle one) 

Great     Good     Fair     Bad     Horrible 
 
14. What was your favorite part of summer school? 

Reading    Math    Enrichment Class  Recess 
 
15. What was your least favorite part of summer school? 

Reading    Math    Enrichment Class  Recess 
 
16. My parents helped with summer school when I needed it (circle one)   Yes  No 
 
17. My summer school teacher was (circle all that apply) 
Helpful  Caring     Smart Strict      Fun         Boring      Hard to understand  
 
18. I got along with my summer school teacher? (circle one)   Yes  No 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            26 

 
19. Rate how you did your work in summer school.  I did . . . (circle one) 
A really bad job       A bad job           An okay job       A good job        A great job 
 
20. My reading class this summer was . . . (circle one) 

Too easy  Easy        Just right     Hard           Too hard 
 
21. My math class this summer was . . . (circle one) 

 Too easy  Easy        Just right     Hard           Too hard 
 
22.  I feel that I still need help in these subjects (circle all that apply) 

Reading   Math  Social Studies  Science Art Music 
 
23. If I had a choice to go to summer school again, I would choose (circle one):  To go   Not to go 
 
24.  In summer school, I felt that I did a . . . (circle one)    
 A great job   A good job A fair job A bad job A really bad job 
 
Please write answers to these questions as best you can. (If you need more space, you can 
write on the back of the page.) 
1. What did you learn this summer? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. How would you rank yourself as a student? (circle one) 

Horrible Poor  Okay  Pretty good  The best 
• Why? 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Make a list of all the things that you liked about the summer school and a list of all the things that 
you did not like about summer school? 
 
 Things I liked about the Academy  Things I disliked about the Academy 
 
 
 
 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    27 

 
 
 
Please answer the questions as best you can: 
1. How are you related to the child in your household who attended summer school? 
 
 
2. How old are you?   
 
3. Which school did your child attend fourth grade at last year? 
 
4. How many children are in your family? 
 
5 Are any of them besides the fourth grader attending summer school?  Yes     No      How many? 
 
6.  What did your child do after the summer school program each day? (circle one) 
child care      came home day camp go to a friend's house       stay with a relative 
 
7. Circle all the activities that you child participated in over the summer.   
watching TV/playing video games    team sports   reading   playing outside  playing an instrument  
 
8. How often and for how long did your child participate in each activity?   
watching TV/playing video games ______________   team sports______________  
 
reading __________ playing an instrument_________ playing outside___________ 
 
9. How often did just you and your child do something together? (circle one) 
Everyday Couple times per week        Once per week       Once per month     Never 
 
10. How often do you and your child read together? (circle one) 
Everyday Couple times per week        Once per week       Once per month     Never 
 
11. Does your child usually play alone, with friends, or with family? 
 
12. Was this your child's first time in summer school?  If not, after what grade level did he or she 
attend it before? 
 
13. What was your child's favorite part of summer school? (circle one) 

Reading    Math    Enrichment Class  Recess 
 
14. What was your child's least favorite part of summer school? (circle one) 

Reading    Math    Enrichment Class  Recess 
 
15. How often was your child's summer school teacher in touch with you? (circle one) 
Everyday    Few times per week    Once per week    One time    Two times       Never 
 
16. How often did you go to your child's class(es) over the summer? (circle one) 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            28 

Everyday    Few times per week    Once per week    One time    Two times       Never 
 
17.  Do you believe that you child learned to become a better reader because he/she participated in 
the academy?          yes       no 
 
18.  Do you believe that you child became better in math because he/she participated in the 
Academy?          yes  no    
 
19.  Do you believe that your child is ready to enter fifth grade?     yes          no 
 
20. Rate your child's literacy teacher. 
 Horrible  Poor   Average Good  Excellent 
 
21. Rate your child's math teacher. 

Horrible  Poor   Average Good  Excellent 
 
22.  Do you believe that the Intermediate Academy was well organized?       yes        no 
 
23.  If you had another child in the fourth grade and he/she were invited to participate in the 
summer reading academy, would you let him/her?     yes  no 
 
24. Overall, how would you rate your child's experience this summer? (circle one) 
 poor           fair       somewhat worthwhile     very worthwhile 
 
25. How many weeks out of the 6 did your child attend the academy? (Circle one) 

1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Please write answers to these questions as best you can. (Please feel free to write on the 
back of the sheet if necessary). 
 
1. What did your child learn in summer school this year? 
 
 
 
2. What grade would you give your child's summer school experience? 

Circle one (A being best and F worst):  A B C D F  
Why? 

 
 
3. How do you think summer school changed your child as a student? 
 
 
 
4. If you could change anything about the [District’s name] summer reading program, what would it 
be and why? 
 
 



 
Education Policy Analysis Archives  Vol. 13 No. 14                                                                    29 

Education Policy Analysis Archives                           http://epaa.asu.edu 
 

Editor: Sherman Dorn, University of South Florida 

Production Assistant: Chris Murrell, Arizona State University 
 

General questions about appropriateness of topics or particular articles may be 
addressed to the Editor, Sherman Dorn, epaa-editor@shermandorn.com.  

 

EPAA Editorial Board 
Michael W. Apple 
University of Wisconsin 

David C. Berliner  
Arizona State University 

Greg Camilli 
Rutgers University 

Linda Darling-Hammond  
Stanford University 

Mark E. Fetler 
California Commission on Teacher 
Credentialing 

Gustavo E. Fischman  
Arizona State Univeristy 

Richard Garlikov 
Birmingham, Alabama 

Gene V Glass 
Arizona State University 

Thomas F. Green 
Syracuse University 

Aimee Howley 
Ohio University 

Craig B. Howley 
Appalachia Educational Laboratory 

William Hunter 
University of Ontario Institute of 
Technology 

Patricia Fey Jarvis  
Seattle, Washington 

Daniel Kallós 
Umeå University 

Benjamin Levin 
University of Manitoba 

Thomas Mauhs-Pugh 
Green Mountain College 

Les McLean 
University of Toronto 

Heinrich Mintrop  
University of California, Berkeley 

Michele Moses  
Arizona State University 

Gary Orfield  
Harvard University 

Anthony G. Rud Jr. 
Purdue University 

Jay Paredes Scribner 
University of Missouri  

Michael Scriven 
Western Michigan University 

Lorrie A. Shepard 
University of Colorado, Boulder 

Robert E. Stake  
University of Illinois—UC 

Kevin Welner 
University of Colorado, Boulder 

Terrence G. Wiley 
Arizona State University 

John Willinsky 
University of British Columbia 

 



 
Brown: Staking out the successful student                                                                                            30 

Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas 
 

Associate Editors 
Gustavo E. Fischman &  Pablo Gentili 

Arizona State University & Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro 
 

Founding Associate Editor for Spanish Language (1998—2003) 
Roberto Rodríguez Gómez 

 
Editorial Board 

 
Hugo Aboites  
Universidad Autónoma 
Metropolitana-Xochimilco 

Adrián Acosta  
Universidad de Guadalajara 
México 

Claudio Almonacid Avila 
Universidad Metropolitana de 
Ciencias de la Educación, Chile 

Dalila Andrade de Oliveira  
Universidade Federal de Minas 
Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brasil 

Alejandra Birgin  
Ministerio de Educación, 
Argentina 

Teresa Bracho 
Centro de Investigación y 
Docencia Económica-CIDE 

Alejandro Canales 
Universidad Nacional Autónoma 
de México 

Ursula Casanova 
Arizona State University, 
Tempe, Arizona 

Sigfredo Chiroque 
Instituto de Pedagogía Popular, 
Perú 

Erwin Epstein 
Loyola University, Chicago, 
Illinois 

Mariano Fernández 
Enguita Universidad de 
Salamanca. España 

Gaudêncio Frigotto  
Universidade Estadual do Rio 
de Janeiro, Brasil 

Rollin Kent  
Universidad Autónoma de 
Puebla. Puebla, México 

Walter Kohan 
Universidade Estadual do Rio 
de Janeiro, Brasil 

Roberto Leher   
Universidade Estadual do Rio 
de Janeiro, Brasil 

Daniel C. Levy 
University at Albany, SUNY, 
Albany, New York 

Nilma Limo Gomes  
Universidade Federal de 
Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 

Pia Lindquist Wong 
California State University, 
Sacramento, California 

María Loreto Egaña  
Programa Interdisciplinario de 
Investigación en Educación 

Mariano Narodowski  
Universidad Torcuato Di 
Tella, Argentina 

Iolanda de Oliveira 
Universidade Federal 
Fluminense, Brasil 

Grover Pango 
 Foro Latinoamericano de 
Políticas Educativas, Perú 

Vanilda Paiva 
Universidade Estadual do 
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil 

Miguel Pereira  
Catedratico Universidad de 
Granada, España 

Angel Ignacio Pérez Gómez  
Universidad de Málaga 

Mónica Pini  
Universidad Nacional de San 
Martin, Argentina 

Romualdo Portella do 
Oliveira 
Universidade de São Paulo 

Diana Rhoten 
Social Science Research Council, 
New York, New York 

José Gimeno Sacristán 
 Universidad de Valencia, 
España 

Daniel Schugurensky  
Ontario Institute for Studies in 
Education, Canada  

Susan Street 
Centro de Investigaciones y 
Estudios Superiores en 
Antropologia Social Occidente, 
Guadalajara, México 

Nelly P. Stromquist 
University of Southern 
California, Los Angeles, 
California 

Daniel Suarez  
Laboratorio de Politicas 
Publicas-Universidad de 
Buenos Aires, Argentina 

Antonio Teodoro 
 Universidade Lusófona Lisboa,  

Carlos A. Torres  
UCLA 

Jurjo Torres Santomé 
Universidad de la Coruña, 
España