Written by Nicole Rosenbaum
Introduction
When students struggle in a grade level, educators face a decision: to retain or not to retain? Many studies show the outcomes of grade retention to be significantly negative. Why do teachers continue to retain low-achieving students when the research does not reveal positive results?
Range, Holt, Pijanowski, & Young (2012) cited the National Center for Education Statistics 2010, stating that 10% of current K-8 students in the U.S. have been retained at one time. With national legislation like the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools have increased emphasis on closing the achievement gap, and the rate of retention has increased (Jimerson, Pletcher, Graydon, Schnurr, Nickerson, & Kundert, 2006).
Reasons to Retain
The decision to retain a student is mainly based on the recommendation of the teacher. By retaining low-achieving students, educators try to create a more homogeneous class make-up, one that will make differentiating instruction easier for the teacher (Range et al., 2012). Bowman (2005) categorized four reasons for retaining students. 1) Educators cite a lack of maturity as contributing to learning problems. 2) Educators believe an extra year of school will give student the opportunity to catch up and produce successful academic outcomes. 3) Students fail to meet criteria (i.e. standards-based assessments) required for promotion. 4) Attendance policies dictating the number of unexcused absences are not upheld, allowing some students to miss too many days of school to succeed.
Retention Research
In spite of the common practice of retention, research has repeatedly shown negative academic and socioemotional outcomes. Studies have shown that grade retention is a significant predictor for absenteeism, dropping out, lower levels of academic adjustment, as well as poor attitudes about school, poor behavior, and low self-esteem (Range et al., 2012, Silberglitt, Jimerson, Burns, & Appleton, 2006, Jimerson et al., 2006, Jimerson, 2001, & Bowman, 2005). In addition, students who are retained are more likely to have lower-paying jobs (a result of dropping out before earning a high school diploma) and experience unemployment, incarceration, and periods of dependency on social services (Bowman, 2005). Studies have shown that some short-term gains are displayed by students who are retained, but this growth is not maintained over time (Jimerson, 2001, & Silberglitt et al., 2006).
If research shows that grade retention does not benefit students, why do educators continue to retain students? Martin (2011) gave several reasons. Grade retention is easy to implement. Grade retention does not require much innovation or change in school structure and practice. The short-term improvement of retained students does exist (though the benefits do not last). In addition, retention is a popular practice in early grades where the long-term effects are not apparent.
Retention Alternatives
Researchers suggest early identification of low-achieving students and intense interventions can help deter retention (Range et al., 2012). Jimerson et al. (2006) divided interventions into two categories: school-wide interventions and instructional strategies. School-wide interventions include preschool programs, comprehensive programs focusing on problem solving and conflict resolution, summer and afterschool programs, multiage classrooms, and parental involvement programs. Instructional strategies are teacher-led, focusing on effective strategies and assessments, as well as behavior and cognitive behavior modification. Martin (2011) added providing for additional instruction and tutoring, targeting literacy and numeracy, and promoting student motivation.
All these strategies and interventions occur before retention becomes an option. Jimerson (2004) placed responsibility for promotion on adults. “Children in kindergarten, first, second, and third grade do not fail; their lack of academic success reflects the failure of adults to provide appropriate support and scaffolding to facilitate their early developmental and academic trajectories.” Jimerson demands that parents and educators take the necessary steps to ensure students’ academic success.
Conclusion
Jimerson et al. (2006) exhorted educators to forego the idea of retention and instead focus on how to promote the social and academic competence of students using various interventions. The research showed the negative outcomes associated with grade retention, including dropping out of school, poor academic adjustment, and negative attitudes about self and school. Many school-wide and teacher-led interventions support low-achieving students. Martin (2011) summed up the topic well: “It appears best for students to be promoted with their cohort rather than be retained in a grade for another year.”
Nicole Rosenbaum is an MLC graduate student and grade 3-4 teacher at Pilgrim, Mesa AZ. She has also taught at St. John Lutheran School in Antigua.
References
Bowman, L. J. (2005). Grade retention: Is it a help or a hindrance to student academic success? Preventing School Failure. 49(3). 42-46.
Jimerson, S. R. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review. 30. 420-437.
Jimerson, S. (2004) Is grade retention educational malpractice? Empirical evidence from metaanalyses examining the efficacy of grade retention, in: H. J. Walberg., A. J. Reynolds & M. C. Wang (Eds) Can unlike students learn together? Grade retention, tracking and grouping (Greenwich, CO, Information Age Publishing), 71-96.
Jimerson, S.R., Pletcher, S.M.W., Graydon, K., Schnurr, B.L., Nickerson, A.B., & Kundert, D.K. (2006). Beyond grade retention and social promotion: Promoting the social and academic competence of students. Psychology in the Schools. 43(1). 85-97.
Martin, A.J. (2011). Holding back and holding behind: Grade retention and students’ non-academic and academic outcomes. British Educational Research Journal. 37(5). 739-763.
Range, B.G., Holt, C.R., Pijanowski, J., & Young, S. (2012). The perceptions of primary grade teachers and elementary principals about the effectiveness of grade-level retention. Professional Education. 36(1). 8-24.
Silberglitt, B., Jimerson, S.R., Burns, M.K., & Appleton, J.J. (2006). Does the timing of grade retention make a difference? Examining the effects of early versus later retention. School Psychology Review. 35(1). 134-141.
In my teaching career I retained two students, both young men. Both were retained because they chose not to do their work (one retained by the parents, one at my suggestion). I can assess, remediate, adjust, and tweak until the cows come home, but I cannot change the attitude of the heart.
Both boys expressed later to me and their parents (and one voluntarily and publicly to his peers) that they needed the “kick in the pants.” Both said they never received any negative behavior or remarks from fellow students (I monitored that VERY carefully). Both are doing well in school now, and have great futures.
I don’t think retention is the problem, I truly believe that how retention is used, and the perception surrounding it is the difficulty. I would like to know what these perceived negatives are, and whether the same study has been done in exclusively our Lutheran Schools. Judging us by secular institutions is sometimes apples and oranges.
After having the privilege of teaching full time for 27 years in the LES, I became increasingly frustrated with the growing mentality that “if your child doesn’t learn like mine, perhaps he/she should go somewhere else”. Are not those students who struggle academically also worthy of a Christian education? With all the frustrations a student faces who struggles with processing, ADD/ADHD, dyslexia, etc, how can we toss them out by not recognizing the wonderful gifts each of those challenges brings to our lives, just because we are not trained in how to help?
God led me to leave the full time ministry to pursue how to better help those students,and guide teachers and families to provide the support they can, so that these students can use their unique set of gifts and talents to serve the Creator who gave them those gifts.
Ms. Rosenbaum was correct in stating that we need to teach our children to think cognitively, problem-solve, and use strategies that provide them options. I always tell my students that if they have options, they have hope. Intensive mediation is the key. Jeff mentioned that in his response. If it hadn’t been for all of the mediation from the support group he was blessed to have, he might not be the gifted pastor he is today.
My studies led me to the work of Reuven Feuerstein. A student of Piaget, he was called to Jerusalem after WWII in order to develop an assessment to help decide if the refugees and survivors of the Holocaust could become productive members of society. Over the past 50+ years he and his team have developed dynamic assessments and several series of exercises that can be done one on one, or in the classroom situation in order to mediate thinking skills. The exercises are not content-oriented, so that every race, gender, and age group can use them, yet the skills that are taught can be bridged into every subject area, as well as, every life opportunity. Using these exercises, especially in the light of God’s Word, has allowed me to continue to encourage students who come to their sessions frustrated because they can’t concentrate, can’t remember, can’t read, can’t spell, can’t stop themselves, etc. And as I watch them grow and change and become independent learners, I’m so grateful that the Lord took my path this direction.
Now imagine if our teachers were trained in these exercises to become master mediators in their classrooms. I found a renewed passion for what I do, as well as a joy in recognizing my students’ gifts and talents, and I daily thank God for all those priceless treasures.
Terri,
You have some interesting information; however, Jeff Seelow did have the support he needed. We have one of the finest educational systems in the world because we have Christ-centered teachers who first care for the spiritual well-being of the student combined with great concern for their earthly welfare. I have been around the block for 41 years in our Synod schools serving in three different districts. I must say it is very rare to find a WELS educator who does not have the best interests of the students as their main focus. I compare that we public humanistic education with all their programs that leave our American children hollow and lacking in all areas of life when they come out of the educational program. Yes, in the WELS we have to constantly be on our guard that we are always keeping the welfare of each student that the Lord has brought into our classrooms as our highest priority. As I originally stated on this topic I pray that we always do what is best for our students and not what looks good for the moment. That may include retention or it may not. May the Lord of the Church continue to bless our faithful teachers as they deal with students of all abilities and learning styles as they learn about their Savior and as they learn how to serve that Savior in their lives. I pray that our teacher never become complacent in their responsibility to every student in their classrooms.
Fred Uttech
How do children graduate from high school in America and they cannot read or write at a literate level? Accountability in the American educational system is non existent for both students and teachers. The question for our Lutheran Schools is not about retention of some students but rather are we able to comprehend the task that the Lord has laid before us concerning each child. We owe it to the child to train them along with the parents in the ways of the Lord so that they know Jesus Christ as their Savior. Secondly, we need to prepare these young souls for lives of service. Here is where we need to do our best by the students. That should always be our guide when possible retention enters the picture. A good source for the younger students is the Light’s Retention Scale. This scale covers all the different facets of possible retention issues. The scale works very well when speaking to parents about possible retention as well. May God always motivate us to serve our students by doing what is best for them and sometimes that may include retention.
Thank you, Fred, for your encouraging words. I am going to speak from first-hand experience. My parents shared with me several times that already in first grade the LES teacher thought that perhaps I should be held back (she had also been my kindergarten teacher) but did not follow through on the recommendation. I struggled through all of elementary school with my grades, barely squeaking by in 8th grade with a pass. My goal was to be a pastor; with poor grades like that the chances were against me, and both the principal as well as my pastor voiced their doubts that I would be able to make it through Northwestern Prep because of my grades and abilities (or seeming lack thereof). Looking back, I am amazed they even accepted me on the basis of my grades. After one year at NPS I found myself entering my second year on academic probation. That meant unless I improved my GPA by the end of the first quarter, I would have to withdraw. Well, that didn’t happen. Were it not for the loving concern and encouragement of several of my professors–pastor-trained in this case–as well as President Toppe, I would not have had the courage to finish Friday classes as a Sophomore and begin Tuesday morning as a freshman. I found I fit in better with the class I was now with daily from a maturity level; my grades improved dramatically, and so did my determination to continue working with the Lord’s help to be a pastor.
Forgive my long story, but sometimes I think we listen to what the world says about hurting feelings, making someone feel bad about themselves, and wringing our hands over creating potential felons and street people if we hold them and their parents accountable and encourage them to use their God-given gifts. Proper use of the Law and the Gospel is necessary in these situations. What service are we doing when we pass these young people on to the next grade and give them the false impression that they don’t need to use the gifts God has given them, they will be rewarded just like everyone else anyway? I recall a 6th grade girl in catechism class from the local school district who couldn’t even read beyond the basic first-grade level. When she tearfully confessed to me she couldn’t even read her passages in order to memorize them, she told me that year after year in school her teachers told her it was ok, because she was incapable of reading. Since when are we going to jump on the world’s bandwagon and tell children they will never be successful, will never master reading, math or science, because they simply can’t? The reality is, when we join that mindset, we join the world in their attack and rejection of our gracious God and his wisdom, who apparently form the world’s perspective is incapable of giving human beings the ability to use their God-given gifts to their fullest.
We are not accountable to the American Education System. We are accountable to our God, who in his wisdom created us all, and did so exactly according to his plan. Our accountability is to him. I pray that as pastors and teachers entrusted with the souls in our Lutheran Schools–no matter the level–we use the gifts God has given to us to apply his Word to every situation. I pray that we are led by that inspired and inerrant Word of God to be faithful in our calling to serve our SAvior and his people, without concern for what the world says in their criticism of how we teach and instruct.
Incidentally, I cannot thank enough the pastors and teachers and professors who patiently worked with me, a sinful child bent on not wanting to use the gifts God has given, and using the Law and the Gospel to motivate and direct me. God used them and my parents working with them to bring me to where I am today. May God richly bless our Lutheran Elementary Schools and their Called Workers. May he fill us all with a rich and fervent desire to let his Word guide and rule our hearts and minds, so that the decisions we make may be good and pleasing in HIS sight.
This is an excellent summary of the major ideas surrounding retention. We have known the negative effects of retention for quite some time, but it still shows up as an option for low performing students. I think one thing that keeps it on the table is the isolated case where repeating a grade appears to have helped a student close the achievement gap with his peers, but often that apparent success is short-lived. And when his peers graduate a year ahead of him (at least), the message he may take from that is that he wasn’t “smart” enough. The long-term negative effects of grade retention are not easy to measure. I think Ms. Rosenbaum did a fine job in helping us answer the question posed in the title.