PUPILS’ PERCEPTION ON MASS PROMOTION AND ITS

INFLUENCE ON THEIR ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

CENBY EPPIE G. GAYTOS

cnbg314@gmail.com
MA. SALVACION BAONG
starlightprincess129@gmail.com
LANIZEL ANTOFINA

JUDY ANN LOYOLA

ERWIN BARILLO
erwin_barillo@yahoo.com
JOSE AMADO
joseamado@yahoo.com
November 2019

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

According to the U.S. Department of Education (2001) as cited by Knight

(2014), the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2001) puts forth

the notion that all children must receive the best education possible, leaving no child

behind. What does this mean? Basically, it means that schools need to be improved

(U.S. Department of Education, 2001). With this, teachers as well as administrators

are called with the awareness of the importance of children in grasping all of the

necessary skill and competencies required for promotion. Hence, most schools are

working extremely hard to ensure appropriate education for all students (Richardson,

(2010), so that no child will be left behind educationally.

However, with the realization that all children learn at different paces while

possibly being of the same age, Richardson (2010) stated that it then becomes a

question of what needs to be done for students who have not met the required

educational standards as mandated by the government. Thus, in some communities,

grade retention becomes an acceptable practice despite of the negative effects that

have been documented by research. This is because as stated above, the task of

meeting the requirements for promotion is difficult for some students and they often

experience educational setbacks that usually result in grade retention.

In addition to that, most teachers believe that grade retention is an effective

intervention for helping students to improve academically (Tanner & Combs, 1993)

which is contrasted by Pagani et al (2001) in Richardson (2010) who examined the

practice of grade retention and children‟s academic and behavioural adjustment. The

researchers tracked the impact of grade retention during elementary school on

academic and behaviours adjustment until age 12. It was found that children‟s

disruptive and inattentive behaviours continued and even proceeded to worsen after

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

being held back. Thus, the practice of mass promotion has been seen as a solution

for the witnessed negative effects of holding a student back (Knight,2014).

Mass Promotion is the policy of promoting students to the next grade level

despite of poor achievement at their current grade level (Encyclopedia). This was

supported by Potter, (2003), Doyle, (2004), and Jacob &Stone, (2005) as cited by

Knight, (2014) in their different studies. They believe that mass promotion may give a

sense of hope to the students especially those who are academically left behind.

Students may feel this is their second chance to prove they are capable of stronger

achievement (Potter, 2003), and the opportunity to succeed is within their grasp

(Doyle, 2004). Students‟ self-esteems may not be affected negatively if they are

promoted to the next grade because of the confidence the teachers and principal

may be instilling in the students (Jacob & Stone, 2005).

However, Knight, (2014), he himself asserted that, when being passed on to

the next grade without acquiring the mastery of academic standards, students may

take for granted that they will be given the same pass again the next year and

wonder why should they put forth the effort , thus, decreasing the academic

performance of the students.

Similar to his stand, Bowman,( 2005) in Shaw, (2011) addressed that learning

does take time, but providing additional time does not in itself ensure that learning

will occur.

In the Philippines, the DepEd Order No. 73. S. 2012(2014) defines promotion

and retention by subject and not grade level. Thus, creating confusion for teachers in

deciphering .If the actions required with retention are impossible then the teachers

are correct in interpreting the order as mass promotion.

“Students who fail in a subject are expected to erase these

deficiencies over the summer. Right at the beginning, there

is the question of how a student who failed because of

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

 truancy would fit in this procedure. Absenteeism is one of

the most common causes of a child failing in an elementary

class. A student who has failed to attend most of the classes

is expected to make up all of the subjects over the summer.

Thus, it seems that the teachers are indeed correct in

interpreting the DepEd order. It is mass promotion.”

In the same perspective De Dios, (2015) commented that promoting students

despite of being left behind academically allows the children to be passed to the next

level with no accountability.

Factors affecting learning outcomes are already present so that what

happens in the future probably does not depend too much on whether a student is

retained or promoted. What matters more is what educators do in response when a

student is not meeting the expected goals (Angel De Dios, 2015). He also

commented that promoting students despite of being left behind academically allows

the children to be passed to the next level with no accountability.

These opposing views of different researchers regarding mass promotion and

its influence on the academic performance of the elementary pupils urged the

researchers to undertake the investigation.

At present, the practice of mass promotion is still being observed today

especially in the large schools in terms of population of Elementary Schools in the

Guiuan mainland.

Statement of the problem

This study aims to determine the relationship between mass promotion and

the academic performance of the elementary pupils‟ in the selected Elementary

Schools in the Guiuan mainland.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.1. Mass Promotion

1.2. Academic Achievement

2. Is there a significant relationship between mass promotion and the academic

achievement among the students in the selected Public Elementary Schools?

3. What recommendations can be given to Public Elementary School Teachers

to address issues on mass promotion?

Significance of the Study

This study will determine the relationship between mass promotion and the

academic performance of the elementary pupils from the selected schools in the

mainland of Guiuan. The researchers have listed the significance of the study.

To the School Heads/Administrators. This study will give data and vital

information that will help the administration in formulating measures and guides to

improve the level of performance of the teachers.

To the Teachers. The teachers will be benefited from the study because they

can improve their level of performance teachers in.

To the Pupils. This study will encourage the students to achieve better in

class, giving emphasis on the significance of learning.

To the Future Researchers. This study can be a great help for other

researcher to be used as a guideline and additional information to the parties who will

be interested to study in the factors that affects the academic performance of the

students.

Scope and Delimitation

This study seeks to determine if there is a significant relationship between

mass promotion and the academic achievement of the elementary pupils from the

selected schools in the mainland of Guiuan.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

 The respondents of the study will be the150 students who are randomly

chosen from the selected public elementary schools in the mainland of Guiuan,

specifically the Central schools and second largest schools in terms of population on

the three districts of Guiuan.

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the researchers find it important to give the

conceptual and operational definition of the terms to have clear understanding of the

terms used in this study.

Academic Achievement. It refers to the level of schooling you have

successfully completed and the ability to attain success in your studies (Oxford

Dictionary, 2018). Academic achievement in this study will be the basis in evaluating

the effectiveness of mass promotion policy with regards to the pupils‟ perception.

Academic Performance. It is defined as the accomplishment of a given task

measured against pre-set known standard of accuracy, completeness, cost and

speed. (Ozga, 2013). In this study, academic performance refers as to how the

student‟s performance in class is being affected by the policy of mass promotion.

Accountability. It is the quality or state of being accountable or an obligation

or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions (Merriam-

Webster, 2017). In this study, accountability refers as to how prepared the pupils are

when send to the next grade level.

Grade Retention. It is the practice of holding back students in the same

grade for an extra year if they fail to achieve promotion requirements, either in the

form of a performance measure or in the form of minimum attendance, is used in

many developing and in some developed countries (Koppensteiner, 2011). In this

study, grade retention becomes the alternative solution for those pupils who are not

prepared to be taken into higher grade level.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

 Influence. Influence is the power to have an important effect on someone or

something. If someone influences someone else, they are changing a person or thing

in an indirect but important way (Vocabulary, 2017). In this study, the term is being

defined on how mass promotion affects the academic achievement of a student.

Intervention. Intervention is the alternative measures a teacher would use to

assist students who are struggling academically or behaviourally (Stone & Engel,

2007). In this study, mass promotion is being evaluated if it would make an effective

intervention for those students who are experiencing educational setbacks.

Mass Promotion. Mass promotion is the policy of promoting students to the

next grade level despite of having poor achievement at their current grade level

(Encyclopaedia, 2017).In this study, mass promotion being the independent variable

is used as an alternative to r etention.

Self-esteem. Self-esteem, is the positive or negative evaluations of the self,

as in how we feel about it (Mackie, D. M., 2007). Self-esteem, as used in this study

refers to the self-confidence may be affected for the students who will be promoted.

Stigmatism. It is a distinguishing mark of social disgrace (Collins, 2018).

As used in this study, it refers to the feeling a pupil may feel after being held back.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

 Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the literature and studies by the researchers which

provided insights on the concepts of the study.

Related Literature

Mass Promotion

Against the backdrop of high failure rate, the high opportunity cost of class

repetition and the deadline given to provide basic education for all children by 2015,

most countries, including Nigeria, have opted for the mass promotion policy

(European Scientific Journal, 2015)

Mass Promotion, according to Goldman, (2007) is the practice of promoting

students to the next grade even though they have not acquired minimum

competencies expected of that grade.

In addition to that, the policy of promotion is considered as most appropriate

and cost effective alternative of grade retention. It is the simplest way to reduce

repetition of students and is beneficial for children to carry their studies with their age

fellows. Advocates of this practice affirmed it as more cost effective whereas; the

opponents believe that it affects quality of education by eliminating competition and

motivation for students and teachers as well (Iqbal, 2011).

Social Promotion

Social promotion is generally understood to be the practice of allowing

students who have failed to meet performance standards and academic

requirements to pass on to the next grade with their peers instead of completing or

satisfying the requirements. Promoting students in this way is called social promotion

because it is often carried out in the presumed interest of a student‟s social and

psychological well-being, without regard to achievement (Wiley,1999)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Educational institutions used to believe that holding a student back could harm her

self-esteem, but there is increasing evidence that social promotion may be even

more damaging to a child‟s self-esteem (Thompson, 2018).

Although many schools uses this practice to avoid students from stigmatism

after being held back making it a factor for mass promoting students.

Automatic Promotion

UIS-UNESCO (2012), stated that Automatic promotion is a policy whereby all

children are systematically promoted to the next grade except in exceptional

circumstances (e.g. extended absenteeism due to illness).

Nugent, (2013) defines automatic promotion as advancing a student who has

not sufficiently gained the academic skills and knowledge of one grade level to a

higher instruction or grade level. Moreover,

Moreover, Janvier Gasana, the Deputy Director General in charge of

Education Quality and Standard Department, added in his statement that what is

being referred to as „automatic promotion‟ was an initiative by the government that

calls on schools to give special attention and extra coaching to students who perform

poorly in the course of the year so as to minimise cases of repeating classes or

expulsion of students as a result of failing exams. (Tashoa, 2014)

Academic Achievement

Academic achievement represents performance outcomes that indicate the

extent to which a person has accomplished specific goals that were the focus of

activities in instructional environments, specifically in school, college, and university

(Steinmayr et. al, 2017).

Academic achievement is commonly measured through examinations or

continuous assessments but there is no general agreement on how it is best

evaluated or which aspects are most important- procedural knowledge such as skills

or declarative knowledge such as facts (Ward et al. 1996)

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

 Cruz et al, (2015) asserted that the quality of students‟ performance remains

at top priority for educator, trainers, and researchers who have long been interested

in exploring variables contributing effectively for quality of performance of learners.

Related Studies

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was enacted in 2001 by President

George H. W. Bush. This act was implemented to close the achievement gap with

accountability, flexibility, and choice so that no child is left behind educationally.

Therefore, most schools are working extremely hard to ensure appropriate education

for all students (Richardson, 2010).

Schools nation-wide have implemented programs to assist students in

their academic endeavours in an effort to meet the benchmarks established by NCLB

(U.S. Department of Education, 2001). In addition to after-school programs, 504

plans, and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), promotion practices are also

being utilized.

Grade promotion is the initial goal of every school-age child. However,

the task of meeting the requirements for promotion is difficult for some students.

Students often experience educational setbacks that usually result in grade retention

(Richardson 2010). Tutop (2012) asserted that retention is the act where a student

repeats a grade if they fail to meet the minimum competency set by grade level

expectations. The assumption is if students know they will be retained each year

when evidence of achievement is not demonstrated, this will motivate students to be

successful (Larsen & Akmal, 2007). Marcus et al. (2006) in their new study

conducted for the Manhattan Institute found that holding back low- performing

students helps them academically. Additionally, Jacob & Lefgren (2009) made

several valid points for the support of retention. Their study noted that in some

instances retained students may be better prepared for high school courses, thus

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

enabling the student to “accumulate high school credits at a faster pace”. However,

Jacob (2009), Carifio, (2010), Stone & Angel, (2007) in their studies as cited by

Knight (2014), it shows that those students who are retained experience adverse

effects, emotionally, cognitively, and those experiences increases high school

dropout rates.

According to the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA,

1999) mass promotion is the most common name for the policy of promoting all the

students to the next grade level despite poor achievement at their current grade

level. In other words, it is the practice of passing students on to the next grade who

have failed to master part or the entire grade-level curriculum.

In a study conducted in Anambra State and Nigeria, researchers investigated

the impact of class repetition and mass promotion policies on the academic

achievements of students in Anambra State secondary schools. Most teachers,

parents and even students have the belief that is not backed by any known study in

Anambra State and Nigeria that class repetition has a remedial effect on learning.

But some educationists and policy makers argue that class repetition is economically

wasteful and emotionally stressful because the alternative policy, mass promotion,

will ease the students‟ progression rates and make it possible for more children to be

educated (Eboatu, 2014).

This debate has encouraged the researchers to conduct a research on the

schools of the Guiuan mainland specifically the large schools to see how they see

this policy and how it influence the students‟ academic performance.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored on the Theory of performance (ToP) by Donald Elger

(2000), which states that humans are capable of extraordinary accomplishments. To

perform is to take a complex series of actions that integrate skills and knowledge to

produce a value result. Factors influenced improving performance valued fall into

three categories, but in this study, we focus on the second category--Immersion in a

physical, social and intellectual environment can eliminate performance and stimulate

personal as well as professional development. Also includes, elements of social

interaction disciplinary knowledge, active learning, positive and negative emotion and

spiritual alignments.

Walberg's (1981) Theory of Educational Productivity serves as one of the

theoretical view of this study.More recently, Zins, Weissberg, Wang and Walberg,

(2004) demonstrated the importance of the domains of motivational orientations, self-

regulated learning strategies, and social/interpersonal abilities in facilitating academic

performance. Zins et al. reported, based on the large-scale implementation of a

Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) program, that students who became more self-

aware and confident regarding their learning abilities, who were more motivated, who

set learning goals, and who were organized in their approach to work (self- regulated

learning) performed better in school.

Another theoretical view is the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) which started

as the Social Learning Theory (SLT) in the 1960s by Albert Bandura. It developed

into the SCT in 1986 and posits that learning occurs in a social context with a

dynamic and reciprocal interaction of the person, environment, and behavior. The

unique feature of SCT is the emphasis on social influence and its emphasis on

external and internal social reinforcement. SCT considers the unique way in which

individuals acquire and maintain behavior, while also considering the social

environment in which individuals perform the behavior. The theory takes into account

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

a person's past experiences, which factor into whether behavioral action will occur.

These past experiences influences reinforcements, expectations, and expectancies,

all of which shape whether a person will engage in a specific behavior and the

reasons why a person engages in that behavior.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Conceptual Framework

Mass Academic
Promotion Achievement

Figure 1.A diagram showing the influence of Pupils’ Perception on Mass

Promotion on their Academic Achievement

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Research Hypothesis

There is no significant relationship between mass promotion and the

academic achievement of the elementary pupils.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

 Chapter3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the method and procedures to be employed in

conducting this study. Specifically, it makes the description of the research design,

research locale, respondents, research instruments, data collection and statistical

treatment of data.

Research Design

The researchers use the descriptive-correlation research method considering

that this investigation focuses and describes the extent of relationship between mass

promotion and the elementary pupils academic performance.

A descriptive-correlational research method is a type of research that

comprises of collecting data to determine whether and to what extent a relationship

exists between two or more quantifiable variables (Cohen& Lawrence, 2007).

The data to be gathered will be through survey questionnaire. The

researchers believe that this kind of research method is the most appropriate for this

study considering that this method will help in determining whether there is a

relationship between mass promotion and the academic performance of the

elementary pupils.

The researchers will use this survey questionnaire to gather information from

the respondents. The researchers believe that this method is the most convenient

method in collecting data in which the researchers will ask the respondents to answer

a number of questions in a form of prepared questionnaire. When the data is

collected, the researchers will generalize the findings and utilize it according to the

purpose of the study.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Locale of the Study

The study will be conducted in the selected public elementary schools in the

mainland of Guiuan, Eastern Samar specifically in the lower sections of every school.

Sulangan Central School

Cantahay Elementary School

CampoyongElementary School

Guiuan East Central

SchoolLupok School
Central

Figure 2.Showing the research locale of the study.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study are the selected 150 students who are

randomly chosen and are studying in the lower sections in the selected Public

elementary schools in the mainland of Guiuan.

Table 1. Distribution of Respondents

Name of Public Elementary Schools Numbers of Students

Guiuan East Central School 30

Sulangan Central School 30

Cantahay Elementary School 30

Campoyong Elementary School 30

Lupok Elementary School 30

Total 150

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Research Instrument

The researchers will use survey questionnaire to get the profile of the pupils

in the elementary schools in the Guiuan mainland. To collect evidences from the

respondents, the researchers will use the survey questionnaire adapted from Manley,

J. (1988) in his study entitled “A study of primary teachers’ altitudes toward grade

retention” which was reworded to fit the purpose of this study. It contains thirty (30)

items answerable by checking the box of the rating scale with the descriptors

according to their judgment.

The result of the study will be interpreted based on the following numerical

values:

Range Scale Interpretation

4.21-5.00 Strongly Agree Highly Influential

3.41-4.20 Agree Influential

2.61-3.40 Neither Agree Nor Disagree Moderately Influential

1.81-2.60 Disagree Less Influential

1.00-1.80 Strongly Disagree Not Influential

Also we will get the data from the student‟s grade point average (GPA) for

their academic achievement.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers will prepare a communication letter to the head of the school

requesting permission to distribute survey questionnaires to the pupils being the

respondents of the study.

The survey questionnaires will be personally distributed by the researchers to

assure 100% retrieval.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Statistical Treatment of Data

The data that will be obtained from the survey questionnaire will be

consolidated, organized and tabulated in distribution tables. It will be analysed and

interpreted utilizing suitable statistical tools. Simple frequency counts, percentage

and rating scale will be employed to present the profile of the students in public

elementary schools in Guiuan mainland.

In determining the relationship between pupil‟s perception on mass promotion

and its influence on their academic achievement, the “Pearson‟s R Correlation

Coefficient” will be used as the most appropriate statistical tool.

The following null hypothesis will be tested at 0.5 level of significance:

1. There is no significant relationship between mass promotion and academic

achievement.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

 Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the answers to the research questions posed in this

study based on the data gathered.

Profiles of Respondents on their Perception on Mass Promotion

This section answers the first question regarding the perception of

respondents on Mass Promotion. Table shows the perception of students towards

the said policy. The indicator contains 30 items which were rated by the respondents

of different public elementary schools in the Guiuan mainland.

Specifically, Table 2 contains indicators or items on perception on Mass

Promotion with their corresponding mean score, scale, interpretation, and overall

mean as perceived by the respondents. The indicator that got the lowest mean

average with 2.27 scale of “disagree” interpreted as “less influential” is that the

pupils disagree that their smaller classmates should not be promoted. While the

indicator that got the highest mean average with 4.02 with the scale of “agree”

interpreted as “influential” is that they agree that promotions should be based on

mastery of grade level requirement.

The overall mean of the profile if the respondents‟ on mass promotion is

3.24 with the scale of “neither agree nor disagree” interpreted as “moderately

influential”.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

 Table 2: Perception of Pupils on Mass Promotion

Indicators/Items Mean Scale Interpretation

1. Mass promotion makes the students don‟t want to learn. 2. 65 NA/ND MI
2. Promotion should be based on mastery of grade level requirement. 4.02 A I
3. The teacher is the only one to decide in promoting students with the basis of 3.75 A I
the students‟ academic achievement.
4. Mass promotion does not have a good effect towards the students. 3.01 NA/ND MI
5. Students considered for social promotion have similarities. 3.03 NA/ND MI
6. Mass promotion damages student‟s self-confidence. 2.87 NA/ND MI
7. Students‟ parent should also decide in promoting their children. 3.06 NA/ND MI
8. Mass promotion does not prepare students for successful achievement in 2.87 NA/ND MI
the following grade.
9. Pupil‟s considered for mass promotion should be included in the decision 3.22 NA/ND MII
process.
10. Competency and proficiency testing will increase the number of pupils 3.51 A I
promoted.
11. Classroom behaviour is an important consideration in determining whether 3.94 A I
to promote pupils.
12. Mass promotion should depend upon attending school a certain number of 3.43 A
days during the school year.
13. Pupils who are smaller than their classmates should not be promoted. 2.27 D LI
14. Mass promotion gives the pupil a chance to perform better in the next 3.85 A I
grade level.
15. In making a mass promotion decision, student‟s maturation emotionally 3.3 NA/ND MI
should be considered.
16. Mass promoting pupils will help them catch up academically. 3.24 D LI
17. Mass promoting students encourages them in decreasing their academic 3.03 NA/ND MI
performance.
18. Mature pupils‟ benefit from promoting. 3.14 NA/ND MI
19. Mass promotion discourages rather than encourages learning. 2. 91 NA/ND MI
20. It is acceptable to promote students who does not have passing grades. 2. 63 NA/ND MI
21. Students who have not learned academically should be retained 2. 99 NA/ND MI
22. Mass promotion should be practiced to help the pupils to graduate in 3.33 NA/ND MI
elementary at a young age.
23. Students who are mass promoted become more confident. 3.19 NA/ND MI
24. Mass promotion creates problems for the next level because pupils are not 3.33 NA/ND MI
yet prepared.
25. Mass promotion pushes the students to work harder 3.41 A I
26. Pupils who were automatically promoted can catch up with their friends in 3.47 A I
the next grade.
27. Students should be promoted as long as they are very good in the major 3.71 A I
subjects.
28. Students should be promoted than being retained. 3.09 NA/ND MI
29. Mass promotion should be ended. 3.18 NA/ND MI
30. Mass promotion policy should be revised. 3.36 NA/ND MI

OVERALL MEAN 3.24 NA/ND MI

Legend:
Range Scale Interpretation

4.21-5.00 Strongly Agree Highly Influential

3.41-4.20 Agree Influential
2.61-3.40 Neither Agree nor Disagree Moderately influential
1.81-2.60 Disagree Less influential
1.00-1.80 Strongly Disagree Not influential

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Overall Perception of the Respondents on Mass Promotion

The overall perception of the respondents on mass promotion as shown on

Table 2, the respondents share the same views towards mass promotion. On table 2,

it shows that the first indicator got an overall mean of 3.24 and categorized as

“neither agree nor disagree” and interpreted as “moderately effective”.

Table 3. Distribution of Respondents According to Mass Promotion

Scale Interpretation Frequency Percentage

Strongly Agree Highly Influential 3 2%

Agree Influential 24 16%

Neither Agree Nor Disagree Moderately Influential 110 73%

Disagree Less Influential 0 0%

Strongly Agree Not Influential 13 8.66%

TOTAL 150 100%

As shown in Table 3 which consisted of a scale, interpretation, frequency and

percentage to fully interpret the profile of the respondents in terms of their perception

on mass promotion. The category of “Neither Agree nor Disagree” got the highest

frequency counts of 110, the second highest frequency count is 24 with the scale of

Agree, followed by 13 counts with the scale of Strongly Agree. On the other hand, the

category of disagree got no frequency counts which gives us 150 total of frequency

counts.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

 Pupils' Perception on Mass Promotion

2%
0%
9%
16%

Highly Influential
Influential
Moderately Influential
Less Influential
73%
Not Influential

Figure 3. Profile of Respondents in terms of their Perception on

Mass Promotion
The above figure represents the profile of the respondents of Guiuan East
Central School, Sulangan Central School, Cantahay Elementary School, Campoyong
Elementary School and Lupok Elementary School in terms of their perception on
Mass Promotion. The above graph shows that 73% of the respondent considered
that mass promotion

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Profile of the Respondents on Pupils’ Perception on Mass Promotion

This section answered the questions regarding the profile of the

respondents in terms of their perception on mass promotion. Table 4 shows the

respondents‟ perception on mass promotion with their corresponding mean average,

scale and

interpretation.

Profile of the Respondents on Academic Performance

This section answered the questions regarding the profile of the

respondents in terms of academic achievement. Table 4 shows the respondents‟

profile in terms of their Grade Point Average (GPA) with their corresponding mean

average, scale and interpretation.

Table 4. Profile of the Respondents in Terms of Academic Performance

Mean Scale Interpretation

GPA 86.15 Proficient Very Good

As revealed on table 4, the Grade Point Average (GPA) , the total mean is
86.15% with a scale of “Proficient” interpreted as “Very good”. This means that the
pupils‟ were doing very well academically.

Range Scale Interpretation

90% and Above Advanced Outstanding

85%-89% Proficient Very Good

80%-84% Approaching Proficiency Good

75-79% Developing Fair

74% and Below Beginning Poor

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Overall Perception on Academic Achievement

As shown in table 4, the academic performance of their report card such as

their GPA got an overall mean score of 86.15 with the scale of “Proficient”

interpreted as “Very good”.

This means that the academic achievement of the pupils from Guiuan East

Central School, Sulangan Central School, Cantahay Elementary School, Campoyong

Elementary School, and Lupok Central Elementary School are very well.

Table 5. Profile of the Respondents on Academic Achievement

Scale Interpretation Frequency Percentage

Advanced Outstanding 17 11.33%
Proficient Very Good 72 48%
Approaching Proficiency Good 61 40.67
Developing Fair 0 0
Beginning Poor 0 0

TOTAL 150 100%

As shown in table 5, this was the distribution of respondents according to

their academic achievement, the highest frequency counts was on the scale of

“proficient” with a frequency of 72. The second highest was on the scale of

“approaching proficiency” with a frequency counts of 61, followed by the scale of

“advanced” with the frequency counts of 17. The lowest was on the scale

“developing” and “beginning” with no frequency counts giving the total of 150

frequency counts.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

 Academic Achievement
0%
0%

11% Outstanding

41% Very Good

Good

48% Fair

Poor

Figure 4. Profile of Pupils’ Academic Achievement

The figure above represents the profile of respondents in terms of

academic achievement. As observed in the above figure, they have used the

interpretation of the mean score in table 4 to completely discuss the distribution of

the respondents according to the second variable. This implied that 48% of the 150

total numbers of respondents are doing very well in their studies, 41% of them were

good and 11% are considered outstanding academically.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Relationship between Pupils’ Perception on Mass Promotion and

Academic Achievement

In order to answer the question on the relationship between variables, the

“Pearson‟s r” was employed as a statistical test to gain a much reliable and valid

result.

Table 6. Correlation between Pupils’ Perception on Mass Promotion and

Academic Achievement

Table shows the variables correlated with one another with their corresponding

coefficient, p-value, and their respective interpretation.

Variable 1 Variable 2 Correlation Interpretation p-value Interpretation

Coefficient
Pupils‟ Academic -.057 No .491 Not significant
Perception Achievement relationship
on Mass
Promotion

The relationship between Pupils‟ Perception on Mass Promotion and

Academic Achievement was shown in Table 6. The computed r value was -.057

which was negligible relationship. This resulted in a p-value of .491 which was at

0.05 level. Therefore, the research hypothesis that there is no significant relationship

between mass promotion and the academic achievement of the elementary pupils

was accepted.

Based from the data gathered in this study, it was revealed that the pupils‟

perception on mass promotion has nothing to do with their academic achievement.

This means that pupils‟ still do better in school even with the mass promotion policy.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

 REFERENCES

Berlin, A. (2008). Social promotion or retention? Finding a middle ground should

start in middle schools. Education Week, 28-29.between retention
research and middle-level practice. NASSP Bulletin, 33-56.
Carifio, J. & Carey, T. (2010).Do minimum grading practices lower academic
standards and produce social promotions? Educational Horizons, 88(4),
219-230

Childhood Education, 8, 69-77. Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.6, 2016
children: Finding alternatives to in-grade retention. (Policy Brief). San
Antonio, TX
Cohen & Lawrence, (2007) Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Mental Analysis of
Findings.(Journal, American Educational Research Journal, Washington,
DC), vol. 19, No. 2, p. 237-248.

Collins Dictionary (2018). Stigma. Retrieved from

https://en.collinsdictionaries.com/definition/stigma

Cruz, R. et al, (2015). Correlates of Students‟ Academic Performance in

Intermediate Level. ((Volume 1 - Issue 2). Retrieved from;
http://advancejournals.org/Journal-of-Business-and-Management-
Studies/article/correlates-of-students-academic-performance-in-
intermediate-level/

De Dios, Angel,(2014). To Retain or Promote: Asking the Right Question. Retrieved

from: http://www.philippinesbasiceducation.us/2014/06/to-retain-or-
promote-asking-right.html

Eboatu, 2014

Elger. D. (2000). Engineering Fluid Mechanics. Washington State University

Education, 605-634.) http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsecleg/esea02/index.html.

Goldman, (2007) Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Mental Analysis of

Findings.(Journal, American Educational Research Journal, Washington, DC), vol.
19, No. 2, p. 237-248.

Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA). (1999).

Iqbal, (2011), Effects of Social Promotion on Students. Retrieved from

http://education.seattlepi.com/effects-social-promotions-students-
2113.html

Jacob, B. &Lefgren, L. (2009).The effect of grade retention on high school

completion.

Kinga, E. M., Orazemb, Peter F. ,. Paternoc, Elizabeth M. (1999). Promotion with

and without Learning: Effects on Student Dropout. Working Paper Series
on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms Paper No. 18. The World Bank
Iowa State University University of the Philippines – Los Banos

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229

Knight,T. B,(2014)Public School Social Promotion Policies: Exploring Socially
Promoted Students‟ Experiences.(Dissertation, Liberty University)

Koppensteiner, M. F.,(2011). Automatic Grade Promotion and Student Performance:

Evidence from Brazil.(Working PaperNo. 11/52,University of Leicester, UK)

Labaree, D. F. (1982).Setting the standard: The characteristics and consequences of

alternative student promotional policies. Citizen‟s Committee on Public
Education in Philadelphia.ERIC document.

Larsen, D. E., & Akmal, T. T. (2007). Making decisions in the Dark.

Manley, J. (1988). A study of primary teachers’ altitudes toward grade retention.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.

Nugent P. (April 7, 2013) Automatic Promotion. Retrieved at

https://psychologyductionary.org/automatic-promotion/ retention under
Chicago‟s ending social promotion policy.( American Journal of Education)

Ricarda Steinmayr, Anja Meißner, Anne F. Weidinger, Linda Wirthwein, (2014).

Retrieved from; http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-
9780199756810/obo-9780199756810-0108.xml

Richardson, L S, (2010). Elementary Teachers‟ Perceptions of Grade

Retention.(Dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi).

Shaw, T. C. (2011). Grade retention and social promotion among middle school
students. (Dissertation,Lindenwood University).

Stone, S., & Engel, M. (2007).Same old, same old? Students‟ experiences of grade

Tanner, C. K., & Combs, F. E. (1993).Student Retention Policy.

Tashoa, A. (2014). Automatic promotion: Misunderstood education policy? Retrieved

from; http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/110395/

Thompson, V. (2018) Effects of Social Promotion on Students. Retrieved from

http://education.seattlepi.com/effects-social-promotions-students-
2113.html

Tutop, J. H., (2012) Social Promotion Or Grade Repetition: What‟s Best For The 21st
Century Student.

U.S. Department of Education, (2001).The No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from
Wiley, Richard W. (1999). Taking Responsibility for Ending Social
Promotion. A Guide For Educators And State And Local Leaders.

Wiley,(1999). Engineering Fluid Mechanics. Washington State University Education,

605-634.) http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsecleg/esea02/index.html.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3507229