Retaining Children in Grade
By: Janet E. Foster
From: Childhood Education, Fall 1993
Exercises: J. Geffen
5
10
15
20
25
30
1.
Most teachers agree that young children vary considerably in academic
performance and behavior. Educators are always searching for the most effective
ways of helping children who lag behind academically or appear more immature than
their peers. The different strategies used in the United States include failing children
(employed heavily in the 19th century) and tracking and ability grouping (beginning in
the early 20th century).
2.
Responding to public and political pressure to improve the quality of education,
many school districts adopted retention policies and practices over the past decade.
Children are “held back” from progressing with their age mates in order to provide
them with a “year to grow” or a year to improve their academic performance.
Unfortunately, such decisions are made without consulting the available research on
retention. Retention is costly -–not only in terms of tax dollars, but also the children’s
well-being. The children being held back pay with a year of their lives and possible
continued academic, social and emotional problems.
3.
Even though the professional literature definitively states the harmful effects of
retention, the practice continues to be widely used (Shepard and Smith, 1989). Policy
and practice reform is likely to occur only if educational professionals are knowledgeable about the widely documented results of retaining children in grade. Teachers
must act on good information in order to make wise decisions, while keeping
children’s best interests in mind.
What Research Tells Us
4.
The number of children affected by retention is significant. Estimates place the
annual retention rate in the United States at 7 to 9 percent (Coffield & Bloomers,
1956; Lehr, 1982; Shepard and Smith, 1989). Based on this rate, the cumulative
retention rate for an age group entering school may be greater than 50 percent by
grade 12 if the children stay in school until graduation (Shepard and Smith, 1989). In
other words, at the end of the kindergarten year some of the children who enter are
retained. At the end of 1st and 2nd grades, additional numbers from the original group
are retained. By the time the group graduates from high school, over half have failed
at least one grade.
5.
After reviewing retention research, Nason (1991) reported that between onefourth and one-third of all kindergarten children nationwide are retained. Similarly,
Sheehan, Cryan, Wiechel and Bandy (1991) found that 16 percent of all children in a
midwestern state had experienced at least one grade retention by the 4th grade.
Retaining Children in Grade / 2
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Retention appears to be a widely practiced strategy for dealing with children who
differ academically or behaviorally from what is considered normal.
6.
For state and local school districts, the cost of keeping children in the same
grade for more than a year is very high. Jackson (1975) estimated the cost of retention
in the 1971-72 school year to have been between 739-903 million dollars. Smith and
Shepard (1987) suggested that one year of retention increased the education costs of
an individual by 8 percent, assuming that the student graduates from high school.
Natale (1991) also expressed concern about the high cost associated with failing
children. In this day of education budget cuts, a costly practice such as retention
should be examined to determine how effectively it addresses academic or
developmental needs.
7.
Much research has been conducted in the past decade to evaluate the results of
retention policies that were reimplemented in response to the call for education reform
and accountability. Areas of study include: effectiveness of retention, academic and
socioemotional outcomes of retention, use of retention to create more homogeneous
classrooms, relationship of retention to school drop-out rates and which children are
more likely to be retained. From this work, a body of knowledge has accumulated that
provides educators, parents, school administrators, school boards, legislators and the
community with substantiated information for examining retention policies. The
following provides a summary of these findings.
Evidence on the Effectiveness of Retention
8.
The goal of most retention investigations has been to determine the
effectiveness of retaining children. If effective, children who fail a grade should either
recover their academic lag and/or exhibit a maturity level similar to other children in
the class.
9.
Recent literature in the field, however, presents conclusive evidence against
retaining children. A meta-analysis by Holmes (1989) demonstrated the inefficacy of
the practice. Analyzing 54 negative and 9 positive studies. Holmes concluded that
retention had consistent negative effects on students. The greatest difference found
was related to academic achievement: retained students scored about one-third
standard deviation less than similar children who were promoted.
10. When examining two other variables of great concern to educators, self-concept
and personal adjustment, Holmes found the promoted children to have the advantage.
The evidence consistently supports the belief that, in general, children do not profit
from being retained.
11. Holmes (1989) also examined the characteristics of children who participated in
retention studies showing beneficial results. He found that the children were
systematically more able than a traditional population; that is, all children, both
retained and promoted, scored average or above average on standardized achievement
measures. In addition, most of the positive studies were conducted in suburban
settings and contained few, if any, minority students; socioeconomic levels
Retaining Children in Grade / 3
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
represented lower middle to upper middle class. Also, potential failures were
identified early and given intensive intervention in low teacher-student ratio
classrooms during the retention year. These positive studies suggest that, in order for
retention to be successful, additional intervention strategies are required. But we
cannot conclude that this would be true for all groups of children.
12. A large number of other meta-analyses and syntheses of retention studies
confirm the notion that children recommended for retention, but promoted anyway, do
at least as well or better than similar children who are retained in order to improve
their academic skills (Bossing & Brien, 1980; Byrnes & Yamamoto, 1985; Coffield &
Bloomers, 1956; Goodlad, 1954; Holmes, 1983; Holmes & Matthews, 1984; Koons,
1977; Labaree, 1984; Moran, 1989; Niklason, 1984; Smith & Shepard, 1989).
According to Smith and Shepard (1989), only small achievement gains were
demonstrated by the retained groups after a retention year (less than 8 percentile
points). Therefore, if the goal of retention is to enhance academic achievement,
implementation fails to realize this goal.
Retention and Academic Outcomes
13. Because a major reason given for retaining children in grade is to improve
academic achievement (Holloman, 1990; Nason, 1991; Niklason, 1987), many studies
focus on the academic outcomes of retention. In addition to the literature already
mentioned, Niklason (1987) investigated 102 subjects (62 targeted for retention but
promoted and 40 retained). Children were grouped according to a young group
(grades K-1) or an older group (grades 2-6). Results on reading and arithmetic
measures demonstrated that promoted students made more progress the following
year than did those who had been retained.
14. Conversely, although infrequent in number, a few studies have found that
retention improved the academic achievement of the retained groups (Ames, 1980;
Lindvig, 1983; Owen & Koon, 1978; Scott & Ames, 1969). Scott and Ames (1969)
reported that children retained due to immaturity, as measured by the Gesell School
Readiness Test, experienced statistically significant improvement in academic
performance as measured by grades. Twenty-seven children in grades K-6 who had
been retained due to immaturity were subjects of the study.
Retention and Self-Concept
15. Educators are also concerned about the effect of non-promotion on children’s
self-concept. Concern was voiced as early as 1909 that failing a grade would damage
children’s self-esteem and create socio-emotional problems (Bocks, 1977; Holloman,
1990; House, 1989; Labaree, 1984; Nason, 1991; Natale, 1991; Shepard and Smith,
1989). A number of researchers have addressed this concern.
16. A few studies have reported positive outcomes. In one study (Pomplun, 1988),
retained primary students’ self-concepts appeared stable over a two-year period
following retention, but intermediate and secondary students showed significant
Retaining Children in Grade / 4
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
decreases in self-esteem. Finlayson (1977) found no difference in self-concept
measures for promoted and non-promoted elementary students.
17. Many studies, however, have found retention to have negative effects on
students’ self-esteem (Bocks, 1977; Bossing & Brien, 1980; Goodlad, 1954; Moran,
1989; Niklason, 1984). Byrnes (1989) interviewed 71 retained children in grades 1, 3
and 6. When asked if they knew anyone who had been retained, 27 percent did not
include themselves in their answers. Of the girls, 43 percent did not include
themselves. Eighty-four percent said they would feel upset, bad or sad if they were
retained. Only 6 percent gave positive responses. Bracey (1986) reports that children
ranked failing a grade only slightly less stressful than going blind or losing a parent to
death. Analysis of the children’s responses indicates that retained children perceive
the experience as a punishment and a stigma.
Using Retention to Create More Homogeneous Classes
18. In addition to its use for maturational or academic remediation, retention has
also been used as a means of creating more homogeneous classroom groupings. The
idea is that if children are more similar to each other, they will be easier to teach.
Goodlad (1954) wrote that, for most teachers, a class of children who are very similar
to each other in all areas of development would approximate a teaching Utopia.
19. Over the years, American schools have used a number of methods to decrease
the heterogeneity of students in the classroom. In addition to grade retention, tracking
and ability grouping have also been employed. According to Smith and Shepard
(1989), teachers attempt to decrease the diversity of levels in their classrooms.
Research indicates, however, that retention actually increases the range of differences
in students in a grade level by expanding the levels represented by another year
(Bossing & Brien, 1980; Charlesworth, 1989; Doyle, 1989; Smith & Shepard, 1989).
20. Whether or not homogeneous grouping is desirable, retention does not reduce
the range of differences within a class. Intellectual, socioemotional and physical
development does not occur on a common continuum for individuals or for children in
the same age group. Even if children were matched for achievement in one subject,
they would greatly overlap in other subjects (Goodlad, 1954). Goodlad reported the
results of one study that showed variability in achievement was no less for schools
with high rates of retention than for schools with lower rates.
21. Moreover, Moran (1989) described the social problems that may result from
creating groups of widely varying ages in the same grade – a necessary byproduct of
retention:
Ultimately, retaining students creates a situation in which children who are progressing
normally through the public schools are placed in classrooms with older, aggressive
and possibly delinquent students. The situation would seem to be at its worst in grades
6, 7, and 8 when the normally progressing children regularly interact with more
physically mature students who not only bully them but are positioned to introduce
them to the staples of adolescent misconduct – sex, drugs, vandalism, and under-
Retaining Children in Grade / 5
achievement. This unintended consequence of retention should also serve to caution
educators who make retention decisions. (p. 270).
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
22. This scenario is not to be misconstrued as an argument against multi-age
grouping. The illustration above refers to traditional, age-separated classrooms in
which traditional pedagogy is being utilized. The results of mixed-age groups in this
setting may lead to undesirable social interaction among the children involved.
Retention and School Drop-Out
23. Perhaps one of the most frightening and costly effects of retention is the
increased risk of dropping out of school. Although one of its goals is to provide
children the opportunity to be more successful, and therefore stay in school longer,
retention clearly has the opposite effect.
24. This phenomenon is well documented (Bossing & Brien, 1980; Doyle, 1989;
Grissom & Shepard, 1989; Holloman, 1990; Moran, 1989; Nason, 1991; Natale,
1991; Safer, Heaton & Allen, 1977; Smith & Shepard, 1989). Grissom and Shepard
(1989) reported correlational evidence that holding children back increased rather
than decreased the risk of dropping out of school. Being retained one year almost
doubled a student’s likelihood of dropping out, while failing twice almost guaranteed
it. In fact, retention is the second greatest predictor of school drop-out.
Students Likely To Be Affected By Retention
25. The education literature not only suggests a number of negative academic,
social and emotional outcomes of retention, but also provides strong evidence that
some children are more likely than others to be retained. This inequality is in direct
contradiction of equal access to education and equal treatment of all people.
26.  Poor and Minority. A number of studies demonstrated that retention is more
likely to affect certain children. House (1989) indicated that the children most likely
to be retained are poor and minority children. When looking at figures of those
overage for their grade placement, a disproportionate number were minority and/or
representative of lower socioeconomic levels (Carstens, 1985; Doyle, 1989; House,
1989; Jackson, 1975; Mantzicopoulos, Morrison, Hinshaw & Carte, 1989; Moran,
1989; Rose, Medway, Cantrell & Marus, 1981). Shepard and Smith (1989) reported
that in 1982 38 percent of African American children were overage for grade level by
the age of 13, as compared to 23.4 percent of white children.
27. The 1976 U.S. census reported 127,186 8-year-olds were enrolled below their
expected grade level (Rose, Medway, Cantrell & Marus, 1981). Demographic data of
this group revealed that these children tended to be of African American or Hispanic
origin and from families below poverty level.
28.  Males. Mantzicopoulos, Morrison, Hinshaw and Carte (1989) and Safer,
Heaton and Allen (1977) also found that boys were much more likely to be retained
than girls. The fact that males were more likely to be retained has been supported in
several investigations (Carstens, 1985; Charlesworth, 1989; House, 1989; Moran,
1989; Safer, Heaton & Allen, 1977; Shepard and Smith, 1989; Smith & Shepard,
Retaining Children in Grade / 6
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
1987). Shepard and Smith (1989) reported that in 1982, 29.9 percent of males by the
age of 13 were below their expected grade level compared to 21.9 percent of females.
29.  Younger Children. Similarly, children who are the youngest and smallest in a
class were more likely to be retained (Charlesworth, 1989; Mantzicopoulos, Morrison,
Hinshaw & Carte, 1989; Shepard and Smith, 1986, 1987, 1989; Smith, 1989).
Retention, along with a number of other solutions (e.g., raising entry age) is used
unsuccessfully in an attempt to lessen the span of differences in groups of young
children. Regardless of what kind of intervention is attempted, however, there will
always be older and younger children in any particular grade. And, according to
Shepard and Smith (1986, 1987), any class of 1st-graders will have a difference of 8 to
9 percentile points in reading achievement between oldest and youngest. But the age
effect disappears by 3rd grade when these differences are no longer in evidence.
30. Findings such as these illustrate that some children are more likely to be
retained. After reviewing literature related to failing children, House (1989) reported
that students were retained in arbitrary and inconsistent ways and were more likely to
be poor, males and minorities. As a result, it has been recommended that extreme
measures such as legal litigation be pursued to address the issue (House, 1989; Smith
& Shepard, 1989; Stroup & Zirkel, 1983). By challenging unfair school policies in the
courts, legislation that ensures equal access to education and inhibits arbitrary
retention practices may result.
31. School personnel have an obligation to ensure that all children of legal entry age
have the opportunity for a successful education experience. Policies that deny equal
access to appropriate education and result in unfair treatment for particular groups of
children must be seriously considered and corrected.
Summary
32. Unfortunately, retaining students in grade for failure to meet specified
competency levels or for other reasons, such as immaturity, is widely practiced in the
United States. Retention policies are advocated by both the public and many
education professionals. Yet, the definitive literature contradicts many popular beliefs
about retention. Retention does not benefit students either academically or in areas of
personal adjustment. Retention increases the variability of developmental levels in the
classroom, rather than reducing it. Retention is highly correlated with the likelihood
of dropping out of school. And, finally, retention is discriminatory in that the poor,
minorities, boys and younger, smaller children are more likely to be retained than
others.
33. In addressing children’s academic and developmental needs, we must find
solutions that promote their success and decrease the likelihood of further harmful
effects. We should discontinue the well-meaning, but demonstrably harmful and
costly, practice of retention.
Retaining Children in Grade / 7
References
Ames, L. (1980). Retention a step forward. Early years, 11, 10-11.
Bocks, W. (1977). Nonpromotion: A year to grow? Educational Leadership, 34,
379-382.
Bossing, L. & Brien, P. (1980). A review of the elementary school promotionretention. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 212 362).
Bracey, G. (1986). Not being promoted from kindergarten is like the death of parent.
Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 245.
Byrnes, D. (1989). Attitudes of students, parents and educators toward repeating a
grade. In L. Shepard & M. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and
policies on retention (pp. 108-131). New York: The Falmer Press.
Byrnes, D. & Yamamoto, K. (1985). Academic retention of elementary pupils: An
inside look. Education, 106, 208-214.
Carstens, A. (1985). Retention and social promotion for the exceptional child. School
Psychology Review, 14, 48-63.
Charlesworth, R. (1989). “Behind” before they start? Deciding how to deal with the
risk of kindergarten “failure.” Young Children, 44, 5-13.
Coffield, W. & Bloomers, P. (1956). Effects of nonpromotion on educational
achievement in the elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 47,
235-250.
Doyle, R. (1989). The resistance of conventional wisdom to research evidence: The
case of retention in grade. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 215-220.
Finlayson, H. (1977). Nonpromotion and self-concept development. Phi Delta
Kappan, 59, 205-206.
Goodlad, J. (1954). Some effects of promotion and nonpromotion upon the social and
personal adjustment of children. Journal of Experimental Education, 22, 301328.
Grissom, J. & Shepard, L. (1989). Repeating and dropping out of school. In L.
Shepard & M. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on
retention (pp. 34-63). New York: The Falmer Press.
Holloman, S. (1990). Retention & redshirting: The dark side of kindergarten.
Principal, 69, 13-15.
Holmes, C. (1983). The fourth R: Retention. Journal of Research in Developmental
Education, 17, 1-6.
Holmes, C. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies.
In L. Shepard & M. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on
retention (pp. 16-33). New York: The Falmer Press.
Holmes, T. & Matthews, K. The effects of non-promotion on elementary and junior
high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54, 225236.
Retaining Children in Grade / 8
House, E. (1989). Policy implications of retention research. In L. Shepard & M. Smith
(Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 202-213). New
York: The Falmer Press.
Jackson, G. (1975). The research evidence on the effects of grade retention. Review of
Educational Research, 45, 613-635.
Koons, C. (1977). Nonpromotion: A dead-end road. Phi Delta Kappan, 58, 701-702.
Labaree, D. (1984). Setting the standard: Alternative patterns for student promotion.
Harvard Educational Review, 54, 69-87.
Lehr, F. (1982). Grade repetition vs. social promotion. Reading Teacher, 36, 234-237.
[Article provided by Lewinsky Teachers Training College]
Retaining Children in Grade / 9
Answer in your own words.
Choose the best answer.
1.
How does the information provided in the first sentence relate to the title of this
article? (paragraph 1)
Answer: On the face of it, it ______________________________ of retention.
a. would deny the existence
b. would exclude the possibility
c. would appear to justify the practice
d. would not bear upon such practices.
Answer the following question in English.
2.
How is the practice of retention justified? (paragraph 2)
Answer: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English.
3.
Why do school authorities keep on retaining children in grade although the
practice seems to be almost universally condemned? (paragraphs 2 and 3)
Answer: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in Hebrew.
4.
What does the information provided in paragraphs 4-5 suggest about the
educational background of pre-school American children? (inferential; answer is
not clearly stated)
Answer: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English.
5.
Why are children retained in their original grades? (paragraph 5)
Answer: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English.
6.
On what grounds might an educationalist find the information provided in
paragraph 6 rather irrelevant?
Answer: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Retaining Children in Grade / 10
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
7.
What are the topics concerning retention that researchers studied? (paragraph 7)
Answer: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
8.
In what sense are the underlined statements in paragraph 10 rather self-evident?
Answer: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
9.
Why are lower middle and upper middle class children more likely to benefit
from retention policies than pupils belonging to minority groups? (Partly
inferential) (paragraph 11)
Answer: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Choose the best answers.
10. One of the reasons why retention due to immaturity – paragraphs 14-17 – is
likely to prove beneficial is that
a. the students were falsely diagnosed from the very beginning.
b. the students in question were shamed into making greater efforts.
c. they are likely to get better teachers.
d. there is no stigma attached to it.
e. some of them will be taught in smaller classes.
Complete the sentence below.
11. Some will claim that homogeneous classes are to be aimed at, while others will
see such an attempt as essentially harmful; however, both sides realize that…
(paragraph 18)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Answer the question below in Hebrew.
12. What difficulties are likely to arise as a result of retaining students? (paragraphs
18-21)
Answer: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Retaining Children in Grade / 11
Answer the following question in English.
13. What possible outcome of school retention does the author fear most?
(paragraphs 23-24)
Answer: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English.
14. Children belonging to what social groups are most likely to be retained?
Elaborate. (paragraphs 26-29)
Answer: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Answer the following question in English or in Hebrew
15. What is the main idea in this article?
Answer: _________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________