Retention receives plenty of government attention as well. In a memorandum dated February 1998, President Clinton urged the Secretary of Education to work toward eliminating the policy of social promotion in the schools. U.S. newspapers and other media widely reported his stance, equating the reduction of social promotions with "raising academic standards" in the nation's schools. However, frequently overlooked paragraphs of that White House memorandum stated that the alternative to social promotion should not be the repetition of the same curriculum with the same presentation. The Secretary of Education was urged to help school districts find alternatives by using effective prevention methods and remedial programs.

"Neither promoting students when they are unprepared, nor simply retaining them in the same grade is the right response to low student achievement. Both approaches presume high rates of initial failure are inevitable and acceptable. Schools must implement those proven practices that will prepare students to meet rigorous standards the first time" (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 1998).

Certain education experts note retention practices can be based on flawed logic. Says Linda Darling-Hammond, Executive Director of the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, "The premise of grade retention as a solution for poor performance is that the problem, if there is one, resides in the child rather than in the schooling he or she has encountered."

Until recently, the public belief in the effectiveness of retention created a powerful mandate to retain low-achieving students for their own good as well as for society's good (Shepard & Smith, 1990). Countering this mandate, however, are the last two and a half decades of research that clearly indicate traditionally used retention is ineffective and can adversely affect students.