Grade Retention
(A third grader works on learning the proper use of the word “spent” at a school in Colorado. Some policymakers say that third graders who are behind on reading should be held back. But research doesn’t offer a clear verdict on whether that’s a good idea.)
In overall, retention is more likely to succeed in earlier grades and when implemented with instructional support mechanisms tailored towards the educational needs of retained students.
Student promotion policies vary by grade, subjects, and threshold for retention. So unsurprisingly, effects do not fully replicate across these different contexts. That said, a common theme emerges: Retention is more likely to succeed in earlier grades and when implemented with instructional support mechanisms tailored towards the educational needs of retained students.
Naturally, the biggest point of contention is whether there are academic benefits—that is, whether holding back students unready for more challenging course content translates into better educational outcomes for those students later on.
Evidence suggests that grade retention in middle or high school typically leads to worse educational outcomes, with little or no effect on academic achievement and higher levels of student disengagement. Several studies in different contexts find that students retained in middle or high school are less likely to graduate from high school or enroll in college. One study that examined later effects found that they were more likely to be involved in criminal activities.
In contrast, findings on the effects of grade retention in elementary school are more positive (at least in the short run). Studies from Florida, Indiana (PDF), Mississippi (PDF), Chicago, and New York City provide evidence that early grade retention may increase test scores in elementary and middle school; reduce the need for future remediation; and increase the likelihood that students take advanced courses in middle and high school. Early grade retention may lead to increased rates of disciplinary incidents in the short term, but these adverse effects dissipate over time.
Further, recent studies find that the per-pupil cost of early grade retention endured by districts in the long run is only a fraction of the cost of an additional year of schooling. This is primarily driven by the findings that retained students are significantly less likely to be retained or identified for remediation in later grades compared to their peers who barely avoided retention. In addition, at-risk promoted students often take longer than four years to graduate high school. As such, in some instances, this is a pay-now-or-pay later scenario for school districts.
All this might suggest that early grade retention could be a cost-effective way to deal with unfinished learning due to developmental delays. But several words of caution are in order for policymakers and practitioners.
Early grade retention could be a cost-effective way to deal with unfinished learning. But several words of caution are in order.
First, almost all early grade retention policies that yield positive results contain instructional support for retained students. Consider Florida’s long-standing third-grade retention policy—the blueprint for many other states (PDF). Students flagged for retention based on their third-grade reading scores are eligible to participate in a summer reading program (PDF) to improve their reading skills. Further, schools are required to develop academic improvement plans that specifically address their needs, to assign these students to high-performing teachers (based on student performance and performance appraisals), and to provide 90 minutes of daily reading instruction in the following school year. Similarly, in New York City, Indiana, and Mississippi, both retained and at-risk promoted elementary students received instructional support. It is hard to say that retention alone would produce similar benefits.
Second, it is important to objectively identify students most likely to benefit from retention. Several early grade retention policies include “exemptions” to standardized test thresholds, such as for students who have disabilities, who are recent English learners, or whose proficiency can be demonstrated with a teacher’s portfolio. Such exemptions can lead to differential enforcement of the policy because parents from more advantaged backgrounds are more likely to advocate for avoiding retention. These discrepancies could lead to feelings of being excluded or singled out for retained students, especially among traditionally marginalized groups.
Similarly, setting the right criteria for promotion is important because retention may not be as effective for higher-performing students and retaining too many students might hinder schools’ ability to provide the necessary instructional support for retained students. This may be particularly relevant in the context of COVID-19 learning recovery in some districts where many students are behind grade-level standards.
Finally, relatively little is known about the long-term effects. A few recent studies suggest that the early benefits of grade retention policies in elementary school may fade over the years. For instance, there’s no evidence that early grade retention results in higher rates of graduation or college enrollment. We need more research about their effects on postsecondary and labor market outcomes, which are typically better proxies for the long-term well-being of these students.
Early grade retention is getting more attention as a potential way to make up for missed learning. But school and district leaders should absorb the complete lessons of the past two decades: Retaining kids without providing the necessary supports, or failing to identify the right kids using objective criteria will likely yield ineffective results and could even lead to adverse effects.
This commentary originally appeared on Brookings Institution’s Brown Center Chalkboard on March 27, 2023.
For more information or if you have other questions, please call us (813) 468-6528. We serve all of Florida and collaborate with all school districts nationwide.
visit our RESOURCE CENTER for more information