Retention was once believed to help students gain academic ground, improve maturity, and build a stronger skill base. Now it is often considered more poison than cure, and researchers point to the growing body of research supporting that view. Ironically, this research has been carried out and its results disseminated during the same years that the country has moved toward requiring higher promotion standards in the public schools. In this politicized and conflicted atmosphere, it is difficult for school districts to develop policies based on the known effects of retention. In one review, the findings of several large studies are summed up: "Neither social promotion nor retention per se are effective at solving the problem of providing appropriate instruction for low-performing students" (Karweit, 1991).

The large majority of research shows that retention is ineffective, even damaging, yet many stakeholders continue to believe that retention is beneficial. In explaining the continued use of retention in spite of contradictory evidence, Shepard and Smith (1990) state, "Retention appears effective because the majority of retained children make some progress the second year. Even though comparative studies show that the retained child would have made just as much or more progress without retention, teacher beliefs are based on perceived gains and do not have the benefit of this latter comparison." Other reasons for continued use include the fact that recent research is often not readily available to busy, practicing teachers, as well as the reality that in many systems teachers aren't offered other alternatives for intervention or remediation. Even when the research findings are known, the information can be lost in a sea of prevailing appeals to maintain high academic standards.

It should also be noted that a limited body of research finds positive outcomes for specific programs that include grade retention. For example, one recent study asserted retention could halt failure that had begun in earlier years (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1994). And, in an earlier review of studies that also reported positive outcomes for programs with a grade-retention component, Holmes noted distinct parallels in the way the schools handled the issue of grade retention. These programs included early identification and targeted assistance for retained students, as well as personalized education plans and classes with low student-to-teacher ratios (Holmes, 1986). Traditional grade retention without the supportive components noted above may be politically and economically attractive, but is not supported by research.

The following overview of current research and literature summarizes important findings. When interpreting the research, it is important to note that most research studies on the effects of grade retention focus on children retained in the early years of their education. Limited research exists that addresses the effects of grade retention in older children, grades five and up. One reason for this may be that as students become older, they assume more responsibility for their education and subsequent success. Therefore, discussions about the efficacy of retention shift somewhat as students begin to play a more active role in educational decisions.

• One large study following students in the Chicago Public Schools showed that children did not improve over time, especially if they were retained in first grade (Reynolds, Temple, & McCoy, 1997).
• Gains made during the repeated year fade over time (Slavin, Karweit, & Wasik, 1992; National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], n.d.).
• The more times a student is retained, the stronger the chances are of that child eventually dropping out of school altogether (Harrington-Lueker, 1998; NASP, n.d.).
• Traditionally, retention is more likely to have been used for boys, minorities, low-income children, and children rated low in social adjustment (Reynolds et al., 1997).

• Retention does not increase learning readiness for most pupils (Norton, 1990).
• Retention does not effectively increase academic achievement among low-achieving students. In fact, pupils who are promoted rather than retained tend to learn more the next year than pupils of like ability who are not promoted (Norton, 1990; Walters & Borgers, 1995).
• Retention is sometimes used before diagnostic testing that can point schools toward specific remedial help for specific learning problems. In a study of 344 Michigan students referred for special education evaluation, 201 were determined to possess a learning disability. Of these 201, 71.6 percent had been retained at least once before they were referred for evaluation (Barnett, 1996).

• Retention can promote discipline problems and has a negative effect on the student's self-concept (Norton, 1990; Robertson, 1997).
• Retention does not necessarily improve socialization; nonpromoted students tend to choose companions from grades higher than their own (Norton, 1990).
• In a study of retained kindergartners, some children did show social gains during and shortly after retention, but they only slightly increased competence for task orientation. The authors of the study add, "There was little evidence that social competencies were enhanced by retention itself." They went on to point out that retention is traditionally a "passive" intervention (it does not carry with it any focused deliberate effort to induce change in target behavior (Pianta, Tietbohl, & Bennett, 1997).

The above lists of findings should not be misconstrued as an argument for social promotion. Rather, they are intended to reinforce the fact that promotion policies must work to ensure that research-based, equitable practices are in place which allow students to acquire the skills they need to graduate and succeed in life beyond school. Simply put, schools must begin to think about student failure and success in new ways. As practices in and of themselves, neither retention nor social promotion are adequate responses to low student achievement.

---

This document's URL is: © 2001 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Date of Last Update: 09/19/2001 Email Webmaster Tel. 503.275.9500