Return to: Homepage, Publications, or Newsletters

Table of Contents

• Grader Retention: A History of Failure
• Third Grade Literacy Accomplishments
• Update.  Retention in the Early Grades
• NAEYC Professional Development
• Colorado  State Board of Education

Grader Retention: A History of Failure
A long trail of research tells us that retention is not the route to take in our efforts to improve student achievement

William A. Owings and Susan Magliaro

For almost 50 years, research has shown that grade-level retention provides no academic advantages to students. Yet, the practice is gaining increasing attention as schools face political pressure to demonstrate accountability for student achievement. Publications including USA Today (Ritter, 1997) and Education Week (Reynolds, Temple, & McCoy, 1997) have addressed the topic, and President Clinton in his 1997 and 1998 State of the Union Addresses called for increased retention of students with low scores on standardized tests, stating that a child should not move from grade to grade Auntil he or she is ready." Research suggests that retention is on the rise. According to one study (Roderick, 1995), from 1980 to 1992 the national percentage of retained students increased from approximately 20 percent to nearly 32 percent.

The overly simplistic view of retention as a panacea for education woes ignores its negative impact on children. A walk through history reminds us of what we have learned about retention.

History of Grade Retention

It was not until about 1860 that it became common in U.S. elementary schools to group children in grade levels, with promotion dependent on mastery of a quota of content. The New York City school system was reporting the results of promotion and retention as early as the turn of the century. Maxwell’s (1904) age-grade progress study became the standard vehicle for school system reports on retention, promotion, and dropouts. Within the next two decades, researchers started to examine the efficacy of retention in terms of student achievement

The goal of grade retention was to improve school performance by allowing more time for students to develop adequate academic skills (Reynolds, 1992). By the 1930s, researchers were reporting the negative effects of retention on achievement (Ayer, 1933; Kline, 1933). Goodlad (1954) summarized the research between 1924 and 1948 related to grade retention. This synthesis showed that retention did not decrease the variation in student achievement levels and had no positive effect on educational gain. Otto (1951) suggested that retention had no special educational value for children and that the academic gain of nonpromoted students was smaller than the gain of their promoted counterparts.

In the mid-20th century, researchers began to investigate the relationship between retention and dropouts. One study (Berlman, 1949) indicated that students who were retained might be more likely to drop out of school than those who were not retained. This article appeared at a time when the literature was emphasizing the need to keep students in school (Anderson, 1950; Holbeck, 1950; Moffit, 1945; Nancarrow, 1951; Sandin, 1944).

In the 1960s and the 1970s, the pendulum moved toward the social promotion of students. After the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), a time of reduced public confidence in schools, many school systems instituted more stringent promotion and retention policiesCin spite of the lack of supportive research evidence (Roderick, 1994). For the public at large, it was counterintuitive to think that retention was not useful in helping students to reach basic skill levels (Natale, 1991).

Current Practice and Research

No precise national data record the exact numbers of retained students. However, a number of studies suggest that retention has persisted and possibly has increased. The Center for Policy Research in Education (1990) reported that by the 9th grade, approximately 50 percent of all U.S. school students have been retained. Roderick (1995) reported that the proportion of overage students entering high school has risen almost 40 percent since 1975. One synthesis of research indicated that the current level of retention matches that of the early 20th century (Shepard & Smith, 1990).

Of 66 articles on retention written from 1990 to 1997, only 1 supported retention (Lenarduzzi, 1990). These articles and Holmes’ (1984) and Holmes and Matthews’ (1989) meta-analyses document the effects of retention.

Many studies show the association between retention and dropping out of school (Cairns, Cairns, & Neckerman, 1989; Dawson, 1991). These studies control for the effects of other influencing factors. Grissom and Shepard (1989) determined that retention significantly increases the probability of dropping out, controlling for prior achievement, sex, and race.

Demographic data show that retained students tend to come from lower socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds than nonretained students (Thomas et al., 1992). Meisels (1993) found that approximately 40 percent of repeaters come from the lowest SES quartile, whereas approximately 8.5 percent come from the highest SES quartile. Meisels (1993) also determined that more than two-thirds of all retentions take place between kindergarten and 3rd grade. Other studies have shown that retained students tend to be male and African American, with parents who are less educated than the parents of nonretained students (Byrd & Weitzman, 1994; Dauber, 1993; Foster, 1993; Meisels, 1993). In California, George (1993) found that retention rates for African Americans and Hispanics are twice the rate for whites. Byrd and Weitzman (1994) examined social and health factors associated with retention. Poverty, gender, mother’s education level, hearing and speech impairments, low birth weight, enuresis, and exposure to household smoking are significant predictive factors. Learning disabled students may also be retained more frequently than the general population (McLeskey, Lancaster & Grizzle, 1995).

The long-held belief that early retention is best for students continues to be refuted in the literature (Johnson, 1990; Mantizicopoulos & Morrison, 1992; Thomas et al., 1992). Studies of retention in kindergarten indicate that retained students have significantly lower scores on standardized achievement tests than do nonretained students (Dennebaum & Kulberg, 1994). Another study shows no difference in achievement for retained kindergarten students and the matched control group (Shepard & Smith, 1987). Some research indicates that early retention may produce a short-lived increase in achievement; however, this gain vanishes in two or three years (Butler, 1990; Karweit & Wasik, 1992; Snyder, 1992).

Research indicates that retention produces negative social implications. Kindergarten students who were retained indicated a slightly more negative attitude toward school than did a matched control group (Shepard & Smith, 1987). Retained students may have more behavioral problems than those who are not retained (Meisels, 1993). Rumberger (1987) suggests that retention contributes to a permanent disengagement from school.

Research also shows that retention may have negative effects on long-term student achievement. Holmes’ (1989) meta-analysis reviewed 63 controlled studies that compared the progress of retained students with that of lower-achieving promoted students; 54 studies showed negative achievement results for the retained students. Holmes then reviewed only those studies with the greatest statistical control. The negative achievement effects were again demonstrated. These findings were substantially identical to those of Goodlad’s analysis in 1954. Subsequent studies have provided little new evidence to contradict Holmes’ synthesis of research.

Other studies indicate an increased, cumulative negative effect of retention on achievement for at-risk students (Reynolds, 1992). Retained children may continue to decline in reading achievement over time compared with nonretained students. Whether this cumulative decline occurs in mathematics achievement is uncertain.

Retention Harms Learners

Historically, educators have viewed retention as a means of reducing skill variance in the classroom in an attempt to better meet student needs. Clearly, this practice has not achieved its goal. In the process we have harmed our clients. Physicians take an oath that guides their professional practiceCfirst, do no harm. Educators would do well to take a similar oath. Retention harms an at-risk population cognitively and affectively. Alternatives to consider include requiring summer school, offering intensive remediation before and after school, changing teacher and administrative perceptions, and increasing teacher expectations.

One indicator of a profession is that a body of research guides its practice (Darling-Hammond & Goodwin, 1993). A body of research exists on the subject of retention, and it should guide our practice. If we are to treat our Apatients" professionally, we need to stop punishing nonlearners and instead provide opportunities for success.

References

Anderson, H.A. (1950). AAnother study of dropouts." School Review, 58, 318-319.

Ayer, F.C. (1933). Progress of pupils in the state of Texas 1932-33. Texas State Teachers Association.

Berlman, M. (1949). AWhy boys and girls leave school." American Teacher, 20, 33-39.

Butler, J. (1990, November). Effects of retention on achievement and self-concept of kindergarten and first grade students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association.

Byrd, R., & Weitzman, M. (1994). APredictors of early grade retention among children in the United States." Pediatrics, 93(3), 481-487.

Cairns, R.B., Cairns, B.D., & Neckerman, H.J. (1989). AEarly school dropout: Configurations and determinants. A Child Development, 60(6), 1437-1452.

Center for Policy Research in Education (1990). Repeating grades in school: Current practice and research evidence. Washington, DC: Author.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Goodwin, L.A. (1993). AProgress towards professionalism in teaching." In G. Cawelti (ed.), Challenges and achievements of American education (pp. 19-52). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Dauber, S. (1993). ACharacteristics of retainees and early precursors of retention in grade: Who is held back?" Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(3), 326-343.

Dawson, D.A. (1991). AFamily structure and children’s health and well being: Data from the 1988 national health interview survey on child health." Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(3), 573-584.

Dennebaum, J.M., & Kulberg, J.M. (1994). AKindergarten retention and transition classrooms: Their relationship to achievement." Psychology in the Schools, 31(1), 5-12.

Foster, J. (1993). AReviews of research: Retaining children in grade." Childhood Education, 70(1), 38-43.

George, C. (1993). Beyond retention: A study of retention rates, practices, and successful alternatives in California. Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education.

Goodlad, J. (1954). ASome effects of promotion and non-promotion upon the social and personal adjustment of children." Journal of Experimental Education, 22, 301-328.

Grissom, J.B., & Shepard, L.A. (1989). ARepeating and dropping out of school." In L. Shepard & M. Smith (eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 34-63). London: Falmer Press.

Holbeck, E. (1950). ASeven ways to prevent drop-outs." Nation’s Schools, 45, 35-36.

Holmes, C.T. (1989). AGrade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies." In L. Shepard & M. Smith (eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 16-33). London: Falmer Press.

Holmes, C.T., & Matthews, K.M. (1984). AThe effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high pupils: A meta-analysis." Review of Educational Research, 54, 225-236.

Johnson, E., et al. (1990). AThe effects of early grade retention on the academic achievement of fourth-grade students." Psychology in the Schools, 27(4), 333-338.

Karweit, N., & Wasik, B. (1992). A review of the effects of extra-year kindergarten programs and transitional first grades. Baltimore: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, Johns Hopkins University.

Kline, E. (1933). ASignificant changes in the curve of elimination since 1900." Journal of Educational Research, 26, 608-616.

Lenarduzzi, G. (1990). AThe effects of nonpromotion in junior high school on academic achievement and scholastic effort." Reading Improvement, 27(3), 212-217.

McLeskey, J., Lancaster, M., & Grizzle, K. (1995). ALearning disabilities and grade retention: A review of issues with recommendations for practice." Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10(2), 120-128.

Mantizicopoulos, P., & Morrison, D. (1992). AKindergarten retention: Academic and behavioral outcomes through the end of second grade." American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 182-198.

Maxwell, W.H. (1904). Sixth annual report of the superintendent of schools. New York: New York City Board of Education.

Meisels, S.J. (1993). AFailure in grade: Do students catch up?" Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 69-77.

Moffit, F. (1945). Pupil progress in the elementary schools of New York State. New York: University State Press.

Nancarrow, J. (1951). AHow can the school reduce the number of early school leavers?" National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 35, 304-307.

Natale, J. (1991). APromotion or retention? Ideas are changingCagain." Executive Educator, 13(1), 15-18.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Otto, H. (1951). AGrading and promotion policies." NEA Journal, 40, 128-129.

Reynolds, A.J. (1992). AGrade retention and school adjustment: An explanatory analysis." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(2), 101-121.

Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J., & McCoy, A. (1997, September 17). AGrade retention doesn’t work." Education Week, p. 36.

Ritter, J. (1997, August 18). AWhen kids don’t make the grade." USA Today, p. A3.

Roderick, M. (1994). AGrade retention and school dropout: Investigating the association." American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 729-759.

Roderick, M. (1995, December). AGrade retention and school dropout: Policy debate and research questions." Research Bulletin of Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research, 15, 1-5.

Rumberger, R.W. (1987). AHigh school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence." Review of Educational Research, 57(196), 101-121.

Sandin, A. (1944). Social and emotional adjustments of regularly promoted and non-promoted pupils. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shepard, L., & Smith, M. (1987). AWhat doesn’t work: Explaining policies of retention in the early grades." Phi Delta Kappan, 69(2), 129-134.

Shepard, L., & Smith, M. (1990). ASynthesis of research on grade retention." Educational Leadership, 47(8), 84-88.

Snyder, J. (1992, November). The effects of retention in elementary school on subsequent academic performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN.

Thomas, A.M., Armistead, L., Kempton, T., Lynch, S., Forehand, R., Nousiainen, S., Neighbors, B., & Tannenbaum, L. (1992). AEarly retention: Are there long-term beneficial effects?" Psychology in the Schools, 29(4), 342-347.

____________________

The above article appeared in the September 1998 issue of Educational Leadership, 56 (1), 86-88, and is reprinted with the permission of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). William A. Owings, a past president of Virginia’s ASCD, is Superintendent of Schools. He may be reached at Accomack County Public Schools, P. O. Box 330, Accomac, Virginia 23301. Susan Magliaro, Associate Professor of Education, may be reached at Virginia Tech, Department of Teaching and Learning, War Memorial Gym, Blacksburg, Virginia 24601.

Third-Grade Literacy Accomplishments

Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (1998) and Starting Out Right: A Guide to Promoting Children’s Reading Success (1999) present highlights of literacy acquisition, sets of accomplishments that the successful learner should exhibit by the end of each of the primary grades. Although the timing of these accomplishments will vary among children, they are the sorts of things that should be in place before entering the next grade.

Accomplishments for third-graders include:

• Reads aloud with fluency and comprehension any text that is appropriately designed for grade level.
• Uses letter-sound correspondence knowledge and structural analysis to decode words.
• Reads and comprehends both fiction and nonfiction that is appropriately designed for grade level.
• Reads longer fictional selections and chapter books independently.
• Takes part in creative responses to texts such as dramatizations, oral presentations, fantasy play, etc.
• Can point to or clearly identify specific words or wordings that are causing comprehension difficulties.
• Summarizes major points from fiction and nonfiction texts.
• In interpreting fiction, discusses underlying theme or message.
• Asks how, why, and what-if questions in interpreting nonfiction texts.
• In interpreting nonfiction, distinguishes cause and effect, fact and opinion, main ideas and supporting details.
• Uses information and reasoning to examine bases of hypotheses and opinions.
• Infers word meaning from taught roots, prefixes, and suffixes.
• Correctly spells previously studied words and language patterns in own writing.
• Begins to incorporate literacy words and language patterns in own writing (e.g., elaborates descriptions; uses figurative wording).
• With some guidance, uses all aspects of the writing process in producing own compositions and reports.
• Combines information from multiple sources in writing reports.
• With assistance, suggests and implements editing and revision to clarify and refine own writing.
• Presents and discusses own writing with other students and responds helpfully to other students’ compositions.
• Independently reviews work for spelling, mechanics, and presentation.
• Produces a variety of written work (e.g., literature response, reports, Apublished" books, semantic maps) in a variety of formats including multimedia forms.

____________________

The above excerpt is reprinted with permission from Starting Out Right: A Guide to Promoting Children’s Reading Success. Copies of the entire publication are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055, (800) 624-6242, at a cost of $14.95 per book. The report is also available online at http://www.nap.edu.

Update
Retention in the Early Grades

In a previous issue of Of Primary Interest, an article was excerpted from Retention in the Early Grades, a document written by Beckie Anderson for the RMC Research Corporation. Unfortunately, the RMC Research staff no longer has free copies of this document available. The publication may be purchased, however, for $10.00 prepaid from RMC Research Corporation, Writer’s Square Suite 540, 1512 Larimer Street, Denver, CO 80202, (800) 922-3636 [voice], (303) 825-1626 [fax], e-mail: [rmc"rmcdenver.com].

SAVE THAT DATE!

NAEYC’s National Institute for Early Childhood Professional Development

June 9-12, 1999
Cincinnati, Ohio

Activities on June 10 will feature a primary-grade symposia

Transforming Early Childhood Classrooms: The Impact of Standards.

Guest speakers will include:
Judy Helm,
Sam Meisels, and
Dorothy Strickland.

For additional information, contact

NAEYC at 800-424-2460.

Colorado State Board of Education
Seated January 12, 1999

This page last updated: December 13, 2007