Written by Nicole Rosenbaum<\/i><\/p>\n
Introduction<\/b><\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
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).<\/p>\n
Reasons to Retain<\/b><\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Retention Research<\/b><\/p>\n
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.<\/i>, 2012, Silberglitt, Jimerson, Burns, & Appleton, 2006, Jimerson et al.<\/i>, 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.<\/i>, 2006).<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Retention Alternatives<\/b><\/p>\n
Researchers suggest early identification of low-achieving students and intense interventions can help deter retention (Range et al.<\/i>, 2012). Jimerson et al.<\/i> (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.<\/p>\n
All these strategies and interventions occur before retention becomes an option. Jimerson (2004) placed responsibility for promotion on adults. \u201cChildren 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.\u201d Jimerson demands that parents and educators take the necessary steps to ensure students\u2019 academic success.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n
Jimerson et al. <\/i>(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: \u201cIt appears best for students to be promoted with their cohort rather than be retained in a grade for another year.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n References<\/p>\n Bowman, L. J. (2005). Grade retention: Is it a help or a hindrance to student academic success? Preventing School Failure. 49<\/i>(3). 42-46.<\/p>\n Jimerson, S. R. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st<\/sup> century. School Psychology Review. 30<\/i>. 420-437.<\/p>\n 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<\/i> (Greenwich, CO, Information Age Publishing), 71-96.<\/p>\n 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<\/i>(1). 85-97.<\/p>\n Martin, A.J. (2011). Holding back and holding behind: Grade retention and students\u2019 non-academic and academic outcomes. British Educational Research Journal. 37<\/i>(5). 739-763.<\/p>\n 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<\/i>(1). 8-24.<\/p>\n 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<\/i>(1). 134-141.<\/p>\nShare this:<\/h3>