The Effectiveness of Retention
Susan Notes: This is one section of a longer paper, "Student Accountability Standards And High Stakes Testing." This passages mentions numerous studies showing that retention harms children. Why is nobody listening?
The practice of retaining students in a grade has been extensively studied over several decades and the preponderance of results show that retained students do worse academically than comparable students who are promoted. Retention has also been shown to have negative effects on personal adjustment, attitudes towards school and school drop out rates. (Dawson and Rafoth, 1998). A sample of the research findings on retention:
• Some groups of students are more likely to be retained than others. Those at highest risk for retention tend to: be Black or Hispanic, have late birthdays (e.g., August, September, October), have developmental delays and/or attention problems, live in poverty, live in a single-parent household, have parents with low educational attainment, or have changed schools frequently (National Association of School Psychologists, 1998).
• Early retentions are not better than later ones. There is no evidence of positive effects on school achievement or personal adjustment by such practices as delayed entry into school, kindergarten retention, or transitional classes.
• Reading is the primary academic problem for which students are retained.
• Initial achievement gains may occur during the first year of retention, but a consistent finding across many research studies is that such achievement gains decline within 2–3 years. Retained children either do no better or perform more poorly that similar groups of promoted children. This is true whether children are compared to same–age or same–grade students who were promoted. One of the reasons that teachers often underestimate the negative effects of retention is that these effects may not show up until the student is in another grade or school.
• Children who are developmentally delayed are most likely to be harmed by retention. Particularly at the first grade level, large percentages of retained children are either subsequently retained again or are placed in special education.
• Retention is associated with significant increases in behavior problems, with problems becoming more pronounced as children reach adolescence.
• Students who are retained drop out of school at a much higher rate than promoted students even controlling for prior achievement, grades and attendance (Roderick, 1995). This finding is true whether the retention occurs early or late in their school career. For students who have been retained twice, the likelihood of dropping out increases by 90% (Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents, 1989).
• A recent national longitudinal study shows that the use of high stakes 8th grade tests is associated with sharply higher drop-out rates, especially for students at schools serving mainly low SES students (Reardon, 1996).
• Asked to rate stressful experiences, a group of students rated only blindness and death of a parent as more stressful than being retained in school (Byrnes and Yamamoto, 1984).
Some have argued that retention research has not looked at what has been called "retention with remediation." They correctly point out that a few studies have provided some support for retention. However, Holmes (1990) points out that these studies are similar in that they occurred in suburban settings, and included few, if any, disadvantaged students. Most retained students had average IQs and near-average reading skills. Retained students were not recycled through the standard curriculum but were placed in special classes with low teacher/pupil ratios and given considerable extra help. It should be noted that most of these successful retention studies did not provide remediation for the at-risk promoted children with whom they compared the retained children. In those that did, promoted at-risk children with extra help did better than retained children with extra help.
William Romey has pointed out that it's ironic that, "Retaining a child who hasn't passed a certain level at the end of June isn't really retention at all. It is moving the child clear back to the beginning of the year he or she has failed rather than working with the individual child at his or her actual achievement level." (Romey, 2000, p. 632). Romey suggests that children do not need to repeat an entire grade when they are missing part of the material-they just need to practice some of the material longer.
Despite the consistent research findings that retaining students does not improve long-term achievement and will actually increase the chances of dropping out of school, the SAS emphasizes retention as a way of helping students.
American Educational Research Association (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
American Educational Research Association (2000). AERA position statement concerning high-stakes testing in PreK–12 education. [On-line]. Available: www.aera.net/about/policy/stakes.htm.
American Psychological Association (1997). Learner-Centered psychological principles: A framework for school redesign and reform. Revision prepared by a Work Group of the American Psychological Association's Board of Educational Affairs (BEA), November 1997.
Byrbes, D. and Yamomto, K. (1984). Grade repetition: Views of parents, teachers, and principals. Logan,UT: Utah State School of Education.
Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College-Hill.
Dawson, M. M. & Rafoth, M. A. (1991). Why student retention doesn't work. Streamlined Seminar, 9, 3.
Heubert, J. P. & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington: National Academy Press. [Also on-line document]. Available: www.nap.edu/books/0309062802/html/ index.html
Holmes, C. T. (1990). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.) Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. New York: Farmer.
Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbough, T., & Davis, M. (1999) The impact of high stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina, Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 3.
Linn, Robert L. (2000, March). Assessments and Accountability. ER Online [On-line serial], 29(2). Available: www.aera.net/pubs/er/arts/29-02/linn01.htm.
Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin, S. C., & Suhor, C. (1988.) Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (1998 a) Position paper on standardized testing of young children in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: Author.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (1998 b). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. [On-line]. Available: www.naeyc.org/resources/position_statements/ psread0.htm.
National Association of School Psychologists (1998). Position statement: Student grade retention and social promotion. Bethesda, MD: Author. (available at www.naspweb.org).
North Carolina Association of Educators (2000, September). Does the ABCs program pass or fail? News Bulletin, 31, 2.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1999). North Carolina standard course of study. Raleigh, NC: Author.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2000a) North Carolina public schools statistical profile. Raleigh, NC: Author.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2000b) A report card for the abcs of public education, vol II, 1999-00. Raleigh, NC: Author.
Public Agenda (2000, October 5). Survey finds little sign of backlash against academic standards or standardized tests. [On-line] Available: www.publicagenda.org.
Reardon, S. (1996) Eighth-grade minimum competency testing and early high school dropout patterns. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York, NY.
Roderick, M. (1995). Grade retention and school dropping out: Policy debate and research questions. Research Bulletin 15. Center for Evaluation, Development and Research, Phi Delta Kappa.
Romey, W. (2000). A note on social promotion, Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 8.
Rotthacker, J. W. & Mellnik, T. (2000, August 21). Test rules get tough on school promotions. The Charlotte Observer, pp. A1, A6.
Sadowski, M. (2000, November/December). Are high-stakes tests worth the wager? Harvard Education Letter, [On-line serial]. Available: http://edletter.org/past/issues/2000-so/tests.html.
Salvia, J. & Ysseldyke, J. (1991) Assessment in special and remedial education (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Sanford, E. E. (1996). North Carolina End-of-Grade Tests (Technical Report #1). Raleigh, NC: Department of Public Instruction.
Sattler, J. (1992). Assessment of Children. La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler.
Singham, M. (1998). The canary in the mine: The achievement gap between black and white students. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 9.
Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2000). The use of tests when making high-stakes decisions for students: A resource guide for educators and policy makers. [On-line]. Available: www.ed.gov/offices/ OCR/testing/Testing Resource.pdf.
North Carolina School Psychology Association
INDEX OF RESEARCH THAT COUNTS