Studies have linked dropout rates in Georgia, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina to the effects of grade retention, student discouragement, and school exclusion policies stimulated by high-stakes tests.
~Linda Darling-Hammond, the Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education Emeritus at the Stanford Graduate School of Education and former President and CEO of the Learning Policy Institute (Darling-Hammond, 2004)
No child should feel like a failure in school. No child.
However, conservatives continue to try to remake the long-time evidence showing the harm of grade retention. Here’s the recent Thomas B. Fordham Institute paper Think Again. Is Grade Retention Bad for Kids?
And,
In Struggling Students Who Repeat Third Grade See Improved Achievement, researchers Hwang and Koedel examine Indiana’s test-based retention policy, using statewide data on third through seventh graders from 2011–12 to 2016–17. They claim significant increases in students’ reading and math scores for up to five years after retention. They found no evidence of disciplinary or attendance problems regardless of student gender, race/ethnicity, or family income level due to retention.
But the authors note:
…their study does not examine the longer run effects of grade retention, including outcomes in high school, or the effects on other non-academic outcomes, such as self-esteem, peer relationships, or confidence.
This study seems different from most studies over a 75-year timeline, showing retention as ineffective.
Retention, or “flunking,” as kids call it, is a painful ordeal that can haunt students for years. Children retained in elementary school usually look more developed and older than their peers by middle school. This alone is reason enough to end retention.
The argument is that retention is better than social promotion. The truth is that neither is helpful. Children can receive remedial assistance without retention!
The sad fact is that retention isn’t necessary. Many less expensive alternatives would work better without humiliating children.
For or Against Retention
In 2015, Education Week reported on a speech by former Governor Jeb Bush, a chief promoter of third-grade retention, who expressed concern for children living in poverty falling further behind.
He staunchly defended a policy that he and his education foundations have strongly lobbied for in Florida and elsewhere: holding back 3rd graders who can’t demonstrate literacy. Sarcastically dismissing those who say that such students may struggle emotionally to deal with being held back, Bush told his Tallahassee audience, “God forbid if little Johnny is stressed out. How horrible it is for their self esteem if they’re held back.”
Bush and company seem to believe retention is good for students and ignore opposing studies and better alternatives. They point to states like Mississippi and Florida as having improved test results, but unanswered questions surround those states, and their progress, and other states with retention have not seen such gains.
Michigan dropped its third-grade retention requirement.
“Today, we are taking action to put power back into parents’ hands so they can work with their child’s teachers and make decisions that are best for their family,” Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said. “Getting this done will offer parents more flexibility and ensure educators can focus on doing what they do best—helping students reach their full potential.”
Research
There have been seventy-five years or more of retention research. Here are a few studies.
In 1984, Holmes and Matthews found that retained students showed lower academic achievement, poorer personal adjustment, and lower self-concept. In addition, they found that in all cases, the outcomes for students promoted were more positive than for those who were retained.
Owings and Kaplan found that retained students are likelier to drop out, and they also deemed retention to be expensive (2001). In addition, they emphasize licensed teachers and practical strategies to assist students.
Roderick found that students who failed kindergarten through third grade have a 75 percent chance of dropping out by tenth grade, while those who fail grades four through six have a 90 percent chance of dropping out by tenth grade (1994).
Roderick and Nagaoka examined grade retention in Chicago under their high stakes testing policy. They found that students struggled during the retained year and faced increased rates of special education placement (2005). Among third graders, retention didn’t lead to greater achievement growth two years after promotion. With sixth graders, retention was associated with lower achievement growth.
Jimerson reviewed studies published between 1990 and 1999 and did a meta-analysis of 20 studies reviewing outcome variables (i.e., achievement and socioemotional adjustment) and age or grade of retained population. He matched or controlled variables in the analyses with comparison groups. He found that the results of recent studies and this meta-analysis are consistent with past literature reviews from the 1970s and 1980s. He called for researchers and policymakers to end the debate between inadequate retention and social promotion and focus on better solutions, some of which are included below.
Alternatives to Retention
Looping
Looping means children get the same teacher for two years. It’s a practical and inexpensive way to help children move along, and they need never know they have learning difficulties. It gives the teacher time to get to know students and to adjust class instruction, individualizing instruction for those who need it.
Resource Classes
Resource classes used to provide children with intensive reading remediation for one to two hours during the day. Resource teachers were specially trained in reading and math. They also monitored a child’s progress in general education classes. They also collaborated with general education teachers to assist children in those classes. With IDEA reauthorizations, resource rooms fell out of favor in many school districts, with parents calling for inclusion.
Inclusion and Team Teaching.
IDEA also called for a special education teacher to work alongside the general education teacher in general class settings, ensuring that teachers follow the progress of students with IEPs. Such teaming can boost the success of children with or without disabilities.
Smaller Class Sizes in K-3rd Grade
All classes should be manageable sizes, but it’s especially important in kindergarten through 3rd grade when children get their formal start in school. Lowering classes makes sense. It gives teachers the autonomy to study children’s individual learning needs, address IEPS, and help them differentiate instruction. They can more easily bring small groups of students together.
One of the best studies done in education was the Tennessee Project STAR, which showed lowering K-3 class sizes was beneficial. This study should be revisited.
Reading and Math Camps
The Fordham article mentions reading and math camps, which might help students review and learn skills. Such camps don’t need to be attached to retention, however.
There are many ways to help students with learning difficulties. There is no need to use retention. There is no need to focus on failure. Children thrive when they are succeeding, not when they are failing.
References
Darling-Hammond, L. From ‘Separate to Equal’ to ‘No Child Left Behind’ The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is Damaging Out Children and Our Schools, ed. Deborah Meier and George Wood (Boston: Beacon Press, 2004), 20.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2003).Position statement on student grade retention and social promotion. Bethesda, MD: author.
Ujifusa, A. (2015). Steering clear of Common Core, Jeb Bush decries schools that fail poor students. Education Week.
Holmes, C. T., & Matthews, K. M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Reviews of Educational Research, 54, 225-236.
Owings, W.A. and Kaplan, L.S. (2001). Standards, Retention, and Social Promotion.” NASSP Bulletin, 85 (629): 57-66.
Roderick, M. (1994). Grade Retention and School Dropout: Investigating the Association. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 729–759. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031004729
Roderick, M. & Nagaoka, J. (2005). Retention under Chicago’s High-Stakes Testing Program: Helpful, Harmful, or Harmless? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(4), 309–340. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737027004309
Jimerson, S. R. (2001). Meta-analysis of Grade Retention Research: Implications for Practice in the 21st Century. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 420–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086124
Past Posts About Retention
Third-Grade Retention: Parents Show Common Ground Fighting It May 28, 2023
The Harm Caused By the Third Grade Reading Ultimatum April 5, 2022
Education Secretary Cardona, End Third Grade Retention and High-Stakes Standardized Testing! March 11, 2021
The Haunted Third Grade Classrooms Children Fear: Enter and… Stay Forever! October 29, 2019
Force and Flunk, Tougher Kindergarten Lead to Parental Dissatisfaction with Public Schools July 21, 2019
FORCE & FLUNK: Destroying a Child’s Love of Reading—and Their Life October 9, 2017
Jeb Bush, Retention, and the Failed Ferris Wheel of School Reform October 1, 2016
What’s Scary to Kids: Having Dyslexia and Being Held Back in Third Grade! October 31, 2015
For You Michigan! You Are Wrong about Retention! October 17, 2015
13 Reasons Why Grade Retention is Terrible and 12 Better Solutions May 30, 2015
Retention’s False Promise: Instead—Better Alternatives February 13, 2015
Setting Children Up to Hate Reading February 2, 2014
The real reason is because grade retention also reflects on the teacher. We can’t have any accountability now can we.
Good morning, Rich,
Others will notice children who struggle to learn and are behind whether they move forward or stay behind. But the child is more seen when they are left back. Test scores also have become reflective of how teachers are doing, even though there are many reasons why children test poorly or well.
It sounds like you’re not a fan of teachers. It might help if you volunteered to help in a public school. They are your schools as a taxpayer, and you might learn about teachers’ struggles. They would appreciate your support.
I’m on the fence on this one. My brother was retained in first, my uncle in 4th. One dropped out, the other graduated. Both were underachievers and died in their 50’s after that. From my experience on the inside of this, I thought family dynamics and culture had more to do with “failure” than anything.
Let me help push you to what I would call the right side of the fence, Marie! Next to family and culture, school is critical to children for learning and socializing. When children repeat a class, they’re essentially left behind, and it isn’t a secret. They know this.
Some believe that children control how they learn, and they’re lazy and must be punished. But this is not true. All children want to do well in school. Real learning problems hold them back from this. And they aren’t always able to easily or quickly solve difficulties.
Of course, pushing a child forward when they have learning difficulties is no answer either. Good teachers carefully monitor a child’s progress, and that’s why Looping, teachers teaching the same class of children for two years. is so helpful. The child need never know they’re behind or failing.
Also, if they still have difficulties after two years, they’ll need to adapt with other strengths and assistance. Still, that child won’t be pegged a failure.
I sometimes find myself conflicted over the retention debate. I was held back in the second grade and it was very beneficial. Before retention I made little effort in school and found other interests, specifically sports and drawing, more fulfilling. I recall conversations with my mother around the decision. This was not initiated by the school, but my mother who felt my late July birthday left me less mature than my classmates. I recall having a good experience in first grade and was placed in the advanced second grade class (Tracking was common then), I was very talkative and this landed me in the principal’s office on a regular basis. By the spring semester I was moved to the lowest performing class, not the one at grade level. I recall never finishing assignments and simply drawing most of the school day. I was a latent reader as well. My mother, as all good moms do, thought that I was intelligent and when she made her case to the principal for me to stay back, she told me he agreed as evidenced in our frequent conversations in his office. Mom insisted I get put back in the high second grade class the next year with the same teacher who often sent me to the office. I’m sure Ms. Painter was thrilled. Although my classroom performance improved, it was not until fifth grade that I began to believe I could keep up with the more successful students. My later academic success was as much the result of good parents, high quality teachers, and being around peers who valued school.
My first principal assignment was in an elementary magnet school with many wealthy families. A number of the parents at this school would request retention in kindergarten. When ever we got to decisions about retention, we worked with parents diligently with an evaluation tool that took numerous circumstances into account. It also helped that I had a fabulous school psychologist on staff who was skeptical about retention. All adults involved with the child, parents, teacher or other staff, worked collaboratively and all had to agree before I would approve retention. We always insisted that such a step required that the adults work to help the child understand that this was not because the child failed. We avoided using grades or test scores as determining factors and insisted that this not happen after first grade. The next two schools I served had different populations that often saw a stigma with retention. When we identified potential candidates there, we had a requirement of multiple parent conferences and typically retained one or two students per year. Mass retention based on testing is problematic because it ignores the personal needs of families while sending a message that their child can’t cut it. You are correct that students are the first ones to feel inadequate after being retained and because the retention is not determined until the test at the end of the year, the parents may not even see this coming. If retention is practiced it should be determined on a student by student basis, and not from a randomized test score.
In general, I believe, a class that loops, the same teacher for two years would be better than retention. But if retention is used, what you have described is better than third-grade retention based mainly on a test.
And let’s also question the high-stakes standards! I wonder if when children do better after retention, it is simply because they’ve matured to where they are more developmentally ready to do the work. I hear teachers say that their kindergartners aren’t ready to read as well as when they are in first grade.
Many factors came together for you, and it doesn’t sound like you felt bad that your peers were moving on. I have a late birthday, and sometimes I wonder if school would have been easier if my parents had redshirted or held me back BEFORE starting school. My classmates were mostly older than me, and I struggled to keep up in some subjects.
Thank you, Paul, for your most insightful comment.