RETENTION: CURRENT
RESEARCH AND BEST
PRACTICES
By Megan Andrew,
Maryam Scaffidi, and
Kimberly Tzikas
Welcome Parents!

KWL chart
 In
the first column, record what you KNOW about
retention.
 In the second column, record what you WANT to know
about retention.
Retention: Current Research & Best Practices
Workshop Outline
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Perceptions
Current Research
Policy
Outcomes
Break
When is retention appropriate?
Alternatives
Audiences’ Personal Perceptions:

Discussion
Common Perceptions in Research: Parents
& Students


Parents
Students
Parent Perceptions on
Grade Retention

Akmal and Larsen (2004)
Some parents agreed with the decision to retain, or asked
for their child to be retained.
 Parents requested their child be retained, it was a way of
showing punishment for “failing to show initiative or
cooperation.”


Jimerson et al. (2004)
Information should be given to parents in order to provide
them with a better understanding regarding the possible
effects of retention on their child.
 Schools should provide effective interventions and resources
that parents can access to further their understanding of
grade retention.

Student Perceptions on
Grade Retention

Yamamoto & Byrnes, 1987
the time a student was in the 6th grade, only the loss
of a parent and going blind would create a more
stressful event than grade retention.
 By
Student Perceptions on
Grade Retention

Penna & Tallerico, 2005
Not much changed the second or third time around; rather
they received the same instruction, textbooks, and
assignments that they failed the previous year.
 Redundant routine in the classroom was ultimately boring
and frustrating.
 Students reported receiving less help, and at times, being
the subject of public humiliation by the teacher.
 Ridiculed by their peers through both verbal remarks and
demeaning behaviors.
 Mocked, picked on, bullied, and berated because of their
age and retained status.

Retention: Current Research & Best Practices
Workshop Outline
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Perceptions
Current Research
Policy
Outcomes
Break
When is retention appropriate?
Alternatives
Current Research:
Statistics on Grade Retention

Rates of grade retention

Demographics of those at risk for retention

Effects of age at time of retention
Rates of Grade Retention



Approximately three million children each year fail a
grade (Poland, 2009).
Rates are as high as 15%, demonstrating that within
school populations of about 48 million students, more
than 5.5 million students have been retained (Griffith,
Lloyd, Lane, & Tankersley, 2010).
The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP)
(2003) also approximates that 15% of all American
students are retained each year, with 30-50% being
held back at least once before the ninth grade.
Increase In Retention Rates

The percentage of students retained has shown a
steady increase over the last 25 years to about
40% (Rafoth & Knickelbein, 2008).
 No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, led to an increase in
retention rates, making all students meet minimum
academic standards.
Who is at Risk?

Characteristics such as age, gender, socioeconomic
background, and race/ethnicity are risk factors for
early grade retention.
 Relatively
younger students, especially grades
kindergarten through third grade, and boys, are more
likely to be held back (Cannon, Lipscomb, Public Policy
Institute of California, 2011).
 More African Americans than Caucasians, more boys
than girls, and more students from low SES households
(Griffith, Lloyd, Lane, Tankersley, 2010).
Who is at Risk?

Students with (Griffith et al., (2010):
 low
academic performance;
 failure to meet grade level standards;
 social immaturity;
 behavior problems;
 English as a second language;
 lack of parental involvement;
 lack of attendance and missed instruction.
Grade Retention: Effects of Age



Research regarding when retention is most effective is
inconclusive.
Early grade retention (kindergarten through second
grade) did not yield advantages in reading from first
to eighth grade, relative to students retained later
(third through fifth grades) (Silberglitt, Appleton,
Burnes, Jimerson, 2006).
Retention may decrease in effectiveness as grade level
increases (Pomplun, 1998).
Academic Redshirting

Definition:
 Intentional
delay of school entry into kindergarten in
order to give the child extra time to mature and gain
skills.
 Delay is generally an additional year.
Effects of Academic Redshirting
•
•
•
Delayed entrants into kindergarten had lower
achievement test scores later on, in addition to higher
rates of high risk behaviors in adolescence (Rafoth &
Knickelbein, 2008).
Late entry into kindergarten also denies children an
opportunity for cognitive growth through social
interaction with their age-mates (National Association of
Early Childhood Specialists, 2000).
A study conducted by Loeb (2007), found young
kindergarten students made similar progress during
their kindergarten year, when compared to their older
peers.
Effects of Academic Redshirting

Quirk, Furlong, Lilles, Felix, and Chin (2011)
 The
practice of redshirting was not associated with
school readiness or accelerated achievement.
 The strongest predictor of school readiness is high
quality preschool.
 The youngest children within the sample with preschool,
were rated more ready for kindergarten than the
oldest students without preschool.
Retention: Current Research & Best Practices
Workshop Outline
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Perceptions
Current Research
Policy
Outcomes
Break
When is retention appropriate?
Alternatives
Current Policy:
California Education Code (EC)

Current state law in California requires every school
district to have a written Pupil Promotion and
Retention (PPR) policy approved by the district’s
governing board.
Current Policy:
California Education Code (EC)

PPR (2010) policies must include criteria for
promotion and retention at the following specific
grade levels:
2nd and 3rd grade;
 between 3rd and 4th grade;
 between 4th and 5th grade;
 between the end of the elementary grades and the
beginning of middle school;
 between the end of the middle school grades and the
beginning of high school.
 between
Current Policy:
California Education Code (EC)

Identification of students who should be retained or
who are at the risk of being retained should be
based primarily on:
proficiency in reading between the 2nd and 3rd grades
and between the 3rd and 4th grades;
 proficiency in reading, English-language arts, and
mathematics for the remaining grade levels.


EC does not prohibit school districts from retaining a
child in more than one grade.
Current Policy:
California Education Code (EC)

What data should be used in the decision?
 Students’
grades
 Other indicators of academic achievement
 Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program results
may be included as one indicator of academic achievement;
however, STAR testing results may not be the exclusive
criterion for promotion or retention.
Current Policy:
California Education Code (EC)

Who makes the initial recommendation?



If a pupil is identified as performing below the minimum standard
for promotion, the pupil shall be retained unless their general
education classroom teacher determines that retention is
inappropriate.
If the teacher deems it is inappropriate, the teacher should
specify recommendations for intervention other than
retention.
School districts are also required to provide “programs of
direct, systematic, and intensive supplemental instruction to
pupils enrolled in grades two through nine who have been
recommended for retention or who have been retained.”
Current Policy:
California Education Code (EC)

How are parents involved?
 District’s
policy shall provide for parental notification
when a pupil is identified as being at risk of retention.
 Notice shall be provided as early in the school year as
practical.
 School can retain or promote a student without parent
or guardian approval.
 Policy shall provide a process whereby the decision of
the teacher to retain or promote a pupil may be
appealed.
Retention: Current Research & Best Practices
Workshop Outline
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Perceptions
Current Research
Policy
Outcomes
Break
When is retention appropriate?
Alternatives
Current Research:
Outcomes of Grade Retention


Positives
Negatives
 Academic
 Social-Emotional
 Economic
Grade Retention:
Positive Outcomes

Cannon et al., (2011)
who were retained in the 1st or 2nd grade, can
significantly improve their grade-level skills during the
repeated year.
 Although all groups achieved educationally meaningful
gains, students who repeated a grade did not catch up
to their original peers’ level of performance.
 Students
Grade Retention:
Positive Outcomes
•
Witmer, Hoffman, and Nottis (2004)
Any
small positive effects that have been
seen with the retained students usually
have not been sustained beyond a few
years.
Grade Retention:
Positive Outcomes

Wu, Hughes, and West, 2010
 Students
benefited from retention in both short- and
long-term, as reported by teacher-rated behavioral
observations.
 Noted significant academic competence and social
improvement.
 Teacher’s perceive a decrease in hyperactivity and an
increase in behavioral engagement.
 Possible Limitation: Despite benefits through 4th grade,
retention may create vulnerabilities which may not appear
until the middle grades.
Grade Retention:
Positive Outcomes

Lorence (2006)

Positive effects of grade retention were specific to the
instructional practices students received during their repeated
grade.



If a student is covering the same material from the previous year,
retained students are likely to experience little progress, if any.
With supplemental educational support for students who have
been retained, retained students’ academic performance
increased.
Overall, any gains made by low-performing students can be
attributed to the number of hours spent in, as well as the
intensity of, the intervention, not retention per se (Abbott,
Wills, Greenwood, & Kamps, 2010).
Grade Retention:
Negative Outcomes

Academic
 Jimerson,
 Found
Woehr, and Kaufman (2004)
that using retention as an intervention for academic
failure does not improve academic performance.
 Although initial academic improvement may occur during the
year the student is retained, achievement gains decline
within 2-3 years of retention.
Grade Retention:
Negative Outcomes

Academic

Abbott et al., (2010)



Rafoth & Knickelbein (2008)


Retained students either show declines in achievement over several
years after retention, or have academic outcomes that are no better
after repeating a grade than those of low-achieving promoted
students.
It is unwise to return students to the same insufficient academic
environment that failed them in the first place.
If a student is not given additional instruction to help him/her learn
material missed the previous year, there is little reason to expect
simply repeating the curriculum will enhance student learning.
Retention is the single most powerful predictor of dropping out of
school (Penna & Tallerico, 2005).
Grade Retention:
Negative Outcomes

Social Emotional

The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP)
supports conclusions regarding negative social and
emotional consequences experienced by retained students.
Significant increases in behavior problems;
 Increased risk of health-compromising behaviors:







Emotional distress
Cigarette use
Alcohol use
Drug abuse
Suicidal intentions
Violent behaviors
Grade Retention:
Negative Outcomes

Social Emotional
 In
a longitudinal study of grade retention conducted by
Jimerson & Ferguson (2007), results suggested that
retained students displayed more aggression than the
promoted group of students.
 Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber (1994) and Smalls
(1997) reported students associate being retained with
“flunking”; this association is hard on their self-esteem
and resulted in teasing from their peers.
Grade Retention:
Negative Outcomes

Social Emotional
 Holmes
(1989)
A
highly published meta-analysis, which concluded that on
average, retained students displayed:




Poorer social adjustment;
More negative attitudes toward school;
Less frequent attendance;
More problem behaviors in comparison to control groups.
Grade Retention:
Negative Outcomes

Economic
 School
districts around the country spend an estimated
$10 billion a year to provide an extra year of
schooling for all retainees (Center for Policy Research in
Education, 1990).
 Cost is based on the extra money spent by the taxpayers to educate a student for an additional year, as
well as the delayed entry into the workforce (Eide &
Goldhaber, 2005).
Grade Retention:
Negative Outcomes
•
Economic
 High
correlation between grade retention and high
school dropout rates.
 Students
who don’t graduate are ill-equipped for the
modern workforce and ultimately pay less taxes, adding
cost to welfare programs, and are disproportionately
represented in crime and incarceration statistics (Rumberger,
1987).
 From
the societal level, the cost associated with grade
retention and high school dropout rates, is estimated to
exceed $240 billion annually (Jimerson & Ferguson,
2007).
Break


15 minutes
Questions
Retention: Current Research & Best Practices
Workshop Outline
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Perceptions
Current Research
Policy
Outcomes
Break
When is retention appropriate?
Alternatives
When is Retention Appropriate?


Most of the studies cited by those against retention
are insufficiently sound to support the contention
that making students repeat a grade is always
wrong (Lorence, 2006).
There are no specific indicators that predict which
children could benefit from retention (Jimerson et
al., 2004).
When is Retention Appropriate?


National Association of School Psychologists (NASP)
(2003) also agrees that no study has been able to
predict accurately which children will benefit from
being retained.
According to the NASP position statement, under some
circumstances, retention is less likely to yield negative
effects for students who have:
relatively positive self-concepts;
 good peer relationships;
 social, emotional, and behavioral strengths;
 fewer achievement problems.

When is Retention Appropriate?

NASP Position Statement (2003)
It may be appropriate to retain a student who has difficulty
in school due to a lack of opportunity for instruction, rather
than lack of ability; however, retention is only appropriate
if this lack of opportunity is due to attendance and mobility,
and these problems have been resolved.
 Students should be no more than one year older than his or
her classmates.
 Students should receive specific remediation to address skills
or behavioral deficits, and promote achievement and social
skills during the repeated grade.

Retention: Current Research & Best Practices
Workshop Outline
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Perceptions
Current Research
Policy
Outcomes
Break
When is retention appropriate?
Alternatives
Alternatives to Grade Retention

Parent Centered
Preschool
 School-wide Social & Academic Programs
 Summer and After-school Programs
 Parent Involvement


School Centered
Looping and Multi-age Classrooms
 School-based Mental Health Programs
 Early Reading Programs
 Effective Instructional Strategies
 Behavior and Cognitive-behavior Modification Strategies

Alternatives: Preschool


Poland (2009) suggests that implementation of universal
preschool programs benefits children and reduces retention
rates.
Jimerson, Pletcher, Graydon, Schnurr, Nickerson, and
Kundert (2006)



Basic literacy skills, pro-social behaviors, and socioemotional
development are emphasized in preschool programs.
Early emphasis may assist at-risk students before they experience
academic challenges by providing a foundation of skills.
By enhancing the necessary skills for academic success through
preschool programs, retention may be prevented.
Alternatives: Preschool

Kgobli and Sorlie (2008)

Key Components of Preschool Programs
Consultation
 Training for teachers and preschool staff







teaching of common rules;
good directions;
encouragement;
negative consequences;
problem solving skills
Social skills training



emotion regulation;
problem solving;
anger management
Alternatives: Preschool

Early Prevention & Intervention Programs
 Federally
funded programs that focus on high-risk
families, who are identified by low income, low
parental IQ, and low education:
 Head
Start Project;
 The Carolina Abecedarian Project;
 The Milwaukee Project;
 The Perry Pre School Project
Alternatives:
School-Wide Social & Academic Programs

Definition:
“Establishing specific guidelines and providing proactive
prevention and support for all students and faculty in a
given school. The goal is to nurture the emergence of a
school culture that promotes positive or appropriate
behavior, and operates through collaborative databased decision making to
build a positive school
climate” (George, Harrower, and Knoster, 2003).
Alternatives:
School-wide Social & Academic Programs

George, Harrower, & Knoster (2003) recommend six
general steps that ensure success when implementing a
school-wide support system
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Establish a foundation for collaboration or operation;
Build faculty involvement;
Establish a data-based decision-making system;
Brainstorm and select strategies within an action planning
process;
Implement school-wide program through an action plan;
Monitor, evaluate, and modify the program.
Alternatives:
Summer School & After School Programs


Research has shown additional time and exposure may help
struggling students master academic material (Jimerson et
al., 2006)
Cannon et al. (2011) suggest the following interventions to
increase exposure to academic material for at-risk students.




Trained instructional aides to work with students in small groups
on specific skills;
Learning centers and resource specialists for individual or small
groups in the classroom, or in “pull out” sessions;
After school tutoring led by trained school staff or volunteers;
Summer school or intersession classes.
Alternatives:
Summer School & After School Programs

Smink (2011)
School leaders should invest in summer learning, because
when students aren’t engaged in learning during the summer,
they fall behind in math and reading.
 Schools can partner with summer school programs facilitated
by libraries, parks, or youth employment agencies, in order
to stretch public funds.
 Providing students with summer school instruction would save
funds that would be spent on re-teaching students
throughout the year.

Alternatives:
Summer School & After School Programs

Sherman & Catapano (2011)
 After
 To
school programs provide opportunities:
increase student learning, due to an increase in time spent
on academic activities.
 For k-12 students to experience additional academic
support in formats that are different from what they
experience during the school day.
 For middle, or high school students, to help tutor younger
children as well.
Alternatives:
Parent Involvement


Lack of parental involvement has been identified as
a risk factor for retention.
Schools are encouraged to make policy changes
that encourage and facilitate a strong home-school
connection.
Alternatives:
Parent Involvement

Barriers to Parental Involvement (Lawson, 2003)
Language barriers, work schedules, and a sense of
disenfranchisement have generally resulted in lower levels
of (at least visible) parent involvement by working-class
parents; in particular, those from ethnic and racial minorities.
 The perception of what parent involvement actually is, can
also be a barrier.

Parents described involvement as “keeping their children safe and
getting them to school punctually.”
 Teachers expected parents to be visible at school.
 Teachers can view parents as unwilling to help and has resulted in
parents feeling unappreciated.

Alternatives:
Parent Involvement

Joyce Epstein's Framework of Six Types of
Involvement (1995)
1.
2.
Parenting: Parents create an environment in the home
that supports learning.
Communicating: This type of involvement is
characterized by communication between parents
and school personnel. This occurs when parents
regularly attend school conferences and functions,
including attending parent-teacher association
meetings (Ballantine, 1999).
Alternatives:
Parent Involvement

Joyce Epstein's Framework of Six Types of Involvement
(1995)
3.
4.
Volunteering: Parents act as volunteers in their child’s
school. This includes parents tutoring children in the
classroom (Darch, Miao, & Shippen, 2004) or helping the
teacher by reading and grading papers (Ballantine,
1999).
Learning at Home: Parents assist their children with
homework and ensure that homework is completed.
Additionally, parents help their children set goals that
motivate the child to learn. This involves parents having
high expectations for their child.
Alternatives:
Parent Involvement

Joyce Epstein's Framework of Six Types of
Involvement (1995)
5. Decision Making: Parents are involved in school
decisions. One way parents accomplish this is by serving
as representatives on school committees.
6. Collaborating with Community: Identify and integrate
resources and services from the community to strengthen
school programs, family practices, and student learning
and development.
Alternatives:
Parent Involvement

Strategies to Increase Parent Involvement in Schools
(Darch, Miao, & Shippen, 2004)
Communicate regularly, rather than just when a problem has
occurred.
 Initiate positive contact with parents at the beginning of
each school year, and maintain that contact all year.
 Have parents complete an interest survey.
 Call the parents of children identified as having a learning
or behavior problem within the first two weeks of school
(before other problems surface).
 Have 3-4 conferences yearly with parents of children with
learning and behavior problems.

Alternatives:
Parent Involvement

Strategies to Increase Parent Involvement in Schools
(Pogoloff, 2004)
Communicate with parents in multiple ways.
 Each interaction with parents should begin with a positive
statement, which will lessen defensiveness.
 Let parents know that their input is valued.
 Interact with students and their families in various settings,
such as attending the school’s athletic or theatrical activities.
 Confidentiality must be respected to ensure a positive
relationship.

Alternatives:
Parent Involvement

Strategies to Increase Parent Involvement in Schools
(Kyriakides, 2005)
 Give
parents meaningful jobs in the classroom.
 Educationally
related activities
Alternatives:
Looping & Multi-Age Classrooms

Looping: students spend two or more years with the
same teacher.


Also called teacher rotation, family-style learning,
student-teacher progression, and multiyear instruction.
Multi-Age: students from two consecutive grades are
in the same classroom and taught by the same
teacher.
Alternatives:
School-Based Mental Health Programs


Students with mental health challenges often fall
behind their classmates (Jimerson et al., 2006) and
can end up being recommended for retention.
Schools provide excellent settings for targeting
children’s mental health, their academic
performance, and the important connection between
the two (Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements,
2008).
Alternatives:
Early Reading Programs



Low reading achievement is commonly cited as a
reason for retention.
Reading interventions provide student’s with
additional support and instruction in order to gain
the skills necessary to succeed in school.
Research demonstrates evidence-based reading
programs to be an effective alternative to grade
retention.
Alternatives:
Early Reading Programs

Reading Intervention Programs
 Intervention
services improve achievement and reduce
the need to retain.
 Specific Reading Programs
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Corrective Reading
Reading Mastery
Language!
Wilson Reading System
Read 180
Alternatives:
Effective Instructional Techniques & Assessment


Implementing effective, research-based teaching
strategies and assessment in the classroom, is an
important link to student success.
Recommended teaching techniques and assessment
include:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Direct instruction
Cooperative learning
Mnemonic strategies
Systematic Assessment
Alternatives:
Effective Instructional Techniques & Assessment
•
•
•
•
Direct Instruction (DI): Model for teaching that emphasizes
well-developed and carefully planned lessons.
Cooperative learning: Structuring classes around small groups
that work together to meet a common goal.
Mnemonic strategies: A strategy for understanding and
remembering what one learns through creative restructuring of
learned material (e.g., rhyming, acronyms, singing, etc.).
Systematic assessment: To evaluate a student’s response to
intervention and provide consequences for improvement.
Alternatives:
Behavior & Cognitive-Behavior Techniques



Maladaptive behavior commonly plays a role in the
decision to retain.
Behavior interventions can serve as prevention and
intervention for students at- risk for retention.
Use a combination of behavioral approaches to
reduce disruptive behaviors and increase on-task
time in the classroom.
Alternatives:
Behavior & Cognitive-Behavior Techniques

Specific Strategies to Improve Behavior
 Peer
and adult modeling;
 Peer and adult monitoring;
 Feedback;
 Reinforcement (e.g., token reinforcement systems);
 Group and Individual counseling.
Alternatives:
Behavior & Cognitive-Behavior Techniques


Effective in teaching anger control and selfmanagement.
Ideas can be generated through the use of a
Student Study Team (SST).
 Provides
a collaborative team approach with educators
and parents (Jimerson et al., 2004).
 Assists in identifying an approach that would be most
appropriate for a student’s specific behavioral and
cognitive needs.
Conclusion
The goal of this presentation was to help you, as
parents, to become more versed in the research
surrounding retention, and in turn, be better able to
advocate for your child. Lastly, it was imperative that
we provide you with alternative strategies, if and
when, your child is at risk for retention.
Questions?
Abbott, M., Wills, H., Greenwood, C. R., Kamps, D., Heitzman-Powell, L. & Selig, J. (2010). The combined effects of grade retention and targeted small-group intervention on students' literacy outcomes. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 26(1), 4-25. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Akmal, T. T. & Larsen, D. E. (2004). Keeping history from repeating itself: Involving parents about retention decisions to support student achievement. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 27(2), 1-14.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Alexander, K., Entwisle, D. & Dauber, S. (1994). On the success of failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (1997). Passing on failure: District promotion policies and practices. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED421560.pdf.
Ballantine, J. H. (1999). Getting involved in our children's education. Childhood Education, 75(3), 170-71.
Balow, I. & Schwager, M. (1990). Retention in grade: A failed procedure. Report presented to the California Educational Research Cooperative, University of California, Riverside.
Bonvin, P. P., Bless, G. G. & Schuepbach, M. M. (2008). Grade retention: Decision-making and effects on learning as well as social and emotional development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(1), 119.
Bowman, L. J. (2005). Grade retention: Is it a help or hindrance to student academic success?. Preventing School Failure, 49(3), 42-46. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Braden, M. D. & Miller, J. A. (2007). Increasing parental involvement in education. Communiqué, 36(1).
Bursuck, B. & Blanks, B. (2010). Evidence-based early reading practices within a Response to Intervention System. Psychology In The Schools, 47(5), 421-431.
California Department of Education[CDE]. (2011). FAQs pupil promotion and retention. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/pr/faqppr.asp.
California Education Code. § 37252.2, 37252.5, 37252.8, 48070, 48070.5 (a) through (j). California Department of Education. Retrieved on September 24, 2012 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/
Cannon, J. S., Lipscomb, S. & Public Policy Institute of California. (2011). Early grade retention and success: Evidence from Los Angeles. Public Policy Institute of California, Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Catalano, R. F., Mazza, J. J. & Harachi, T. W. (2003). Raising healthy children through enhancing social development in elementary school: Results after 1.5 years. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 143-164.
Center for Policy Research in Education. (January, 1990). Repeating grades in school: Current practice and research evidence (Policy Brief). New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Christo, C., Davis, J. & Brock, S.E. (2009). Developmental psychopathology at school: Identifying, assessing, and treating dyslexia at school. New York, NY: Springer Science Business Media.
Cistone, P. & Shneyderman, A. (2004). Looping: An empirical evaluation. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, and Practice: Reconceptualizing Childhood Studies, 5(1), 47-61.
Darch, C., Miao, Y. & Shippen, P. (2004). A model for involving parents of children with learning and behavior problems in the schools. Preventing School Failure, 48(3), 24-34.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Alternatives to grade retention. School Administrator, 55(7), 18-21.
Dwyer, K. (2004). Is every school psychologist a mental health provider? YES! Communique´, 32, 11–12.
Eide, E. R. & Goldhaber, D. D. (2005). Grade retention: What are the costs and benefits? Journal of Education Finance, 31(2), 195-214.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-412.
Flanagan, D.P. & Alfonso, V.C. (2011). Essentials of specific learning disability identification. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
George, H., Harrower, J. K. & Knoster, T. (2003). School-wide prevention and early intervention: A process for establishing a system of school-wide behavior support. Preventing School Failure, 47(4), 170-176.
Goos, M., Van Damme, J., Onghena, P., Petry, K. & Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. (2011). First-grade retention: Effects on children's actual and perceived performance throughout elementary
education. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Gottfredson, G. D., Jones, E. M. & Gore, T. W. (2002). Implementation and evaluation of a cognitive-behavioral intervention to prevent problem behavior in a disorganized school. Prevention Science, 3, 43-56.
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. & Bumbarger, B. (2001). The prevention of mental disorders in school-aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention & Treatment, 4, Article 1.
Greenwood, C. R., Kratochwill, T. R. & Clements, M. (2008). Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools. The Guilford Press: New York.
Griffith, C., Lloyd, J., Lane, K. & Tankersley, M. (2010). Grade retention of students during grades K-8 predicts reading achievement and progress during secondary schooling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26(1),
51-66. doi:10.1080/10573560903396967
Hoagwood, K. E., Olin, S., Kerker, B. D., Kratochwill, T. R., Crowe, M. & Saka, N. (2007). Empirically based school interventions targeted at academic and mental health functioning. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 15(2), 66-92.
Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies: In L. A. Shepard and M. L. Smith (Eds.). Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention, (pp. 16–33). Philadelphia, PA:
Taylor & Francis.
Jimerson, S. R. & Ferguson, P. (2007). A longitudinal study of grade retention: Academic and behavioral outcomes of retained students through adolescence. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(3), 314-339. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost.
Jimerson, S. R. & Kaufman, A. M. (2003). Reading, writing ,and retention: A primer on grade retention research. Reading Teacher, 56(7), 622. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Jimerson, S. R., Pletcher, S. 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(1), 85-97. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Jimerson, S. R., Woehr, S. M. & Kaufman, A. M. (2004). Grade retention and promotion: Information for parents. Helping Children at Home and School II: Handouts for Families and Educators.
Jimerson, S. R. (1999). On the failure of failure: Examining the association between early grade retention and education and employment outcomes during late adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 243272.
Jones, K. K., Daley, D. D., Hutchings, J. J., Bywater, T. T. & Eames, C. C. (2008). Efficacy of the incredible years programme as an early intervention for children with conduct problems and ADHD: Long-term followup. Child: Care, Health & Development, 34(3), 380-390. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2008.00817.x
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher beliefs. Educational Psychologist, 27,65-90.
Kappler, E. & Roellke, C. (2002). The promise of multiage grouping. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 38(4), 165-70.
Klein, S. M. (2004). Reaching new heights: A primary prevention program for gifted middle school students. Unpublished Dissertation. Department of Psychology, Graduate College of Bowling Green State University.
Kyriakides, L. (2005). Evaluating school policy on parents working with their children in class. Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), 281.
Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement. Urban Education, 38(1), 77-133.
Lloyd, J., Forness, S. R. & Kavale, K. A. (1998). Some methods are more effective than others. Intervention In School And Clinic, 33(4), 195-200.
Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B. & Rumberger, R. W. (2007). How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers on children's social and cognitive development. Economics of Education Review,
26(1), 52-66.
Lorence, J. (2006). Retention and academic achievement research revisited from a United States perspective. International Education Journal, 7(5), 731-777. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Lorence, J., & Dworkin, A. (2006). Elementary grade retention in Texas and reading achievement among racial groups: 1994–2002. Review of Policy Research, 23(5), 999-1033, retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Mason, E. M. & McMahon, H. (2009). Supporting academic improvement among eighth graders at risk for retention: An action research intervention. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 33(1), 1-5.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Murray, C. S., Woodruff, A. L. & Vaughn, S. (2010). First-grade student retention within a 3-tier reading framework. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 26(1), 26-50. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (2000). Still unacceptable trends in Kindergarten entry and placement: A position statement. Retrieved from http://www.naecssde.org/publications.
National Association of School Psychologists [NASP]. (2003). Student grade retention and social promotion (Position Statement). Bethesda, MD: Author.
National Institute for Direct Instruction. (2012). About direct instruction. Retrieved on February 19, 2012, from National Reading Panel.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. National Institute for Literacy: The Partnership for Reading.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Nelson, J. R., Martella, R. M. & Marchand-Martella, N. (2002). Maximizing student learning: The effects of a comprehensive school-based program for preventing problem behaviors. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 10, 136-148.
Ouellette, P. M., & Wilkerson, D. (2008). "They Won't Come": Increasing Parent Involvement in Parent Management Training Programs for At-Risk Youths in Schools. School Social Work Journal, 32(2), 39-53.
Penna, A. A. & Tallerico, M. (2005). Grade retention and school completion: Through students' eyes. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 11(1), 13-17. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Pogoloff, S. M. (2004). Facilitate positive relationships between parent and professionals. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 116–119.
Poland, S. (2009). Grade retention: School districts are leaving too many children behind. District Administration. Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com/article/grade-retention.
Pomplun, M. (1988). Retention: The earlier, the better? Journal of Educational Research, 81(5), Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Quirk, M., Furlong, M., Lilles, E., Felix, E. & Chin, J. (2011). Preliminary Development of a Kindergarten school readiness assessment for Latino students. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(1), 77-102.
Rafoth, M. & Knickelbein, B. (2008). Best practices in preventing academic failure and promoting alternatives to retention. Best Practice in School Psychology, 70(4), 1137-1149.
Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Herman, K. C., Puri, R. & Goel, N. (2011). Supporting children's mental health in schools: Teacher perceptions of needs, roles, and barriers. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 1-13.
Rumberger, R. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and development. Review of Educational Research, 57, 101–121.
Schnurr, B. L., Kundert, D. K. & Nickerson, A. B. (2009). Grade retention: Current decision-making practices and involvement of school psychologists working in public schools. Psychology in the Schools, 46(5), 410-419.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sherman, H. J. & Catapano, S. (2011). After-school elementary school mathematics club: Enhancing achievement and encouraging future teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 35(1), 3-16.
Silberglitt, B., Appleton, J. J., Burns, M. K. & Jimerson, S. R. (2006). Examining the effects of grade retention on student reading performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 44(4), 255-270.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
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(1), 134141. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Smalls, U. (1997). Reacting in the best interest of our students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services, No. ED 415980)
Smink, J. (2011). A new vision for summer school. Educational Leadership, 69(4), 64-67.
Smith, L. (2011). Slowing the summer slide. Educational Leadership, 69(4), 60-63.
Stecker, P. M., Lembke, E. S. & Foegen, A. (2008). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision making. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 48-58.
Sonnander, K. (2000). Early identification of children with developmental disabilities. Acta Paediatrica. Supplement, 89(s434), 17-23. doi: 10.1080/080352500750027358
Sorlie, M. & Ogden, T. (2007). Immediate impacts of PALS: A school-wide multi-level programme targeting behaviour problems in elementary school. Scandinavian Journal Of Educational Research, 51(5), 471-492.
doi:10.1080/00313830701576581
Tomchin, E. M. & Impara, J. C. (1992). Unraveling teachers' beliefs about grade retention. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 199-223.
Villalba, J. A., Akos, P., Keeter, K. & Ames, A. (2007). Promoting Latino student achievement and development through the ASCA national model [R]. Professional School Counseling, 10(5), 464-474.
What Works Clearinghouse, (2007). Corrective reading. What Works Clearinghouse intervention report. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from EBSCO.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2008). Reading mastery. What Works Clearinghouse intervention report. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from EBSCO.
What Works Clearinghouse, (2010). Reading mastery. What Works Clearinghouse intervention report. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from EBSCO.
Witmer, S. M., Hoffman, L. M. & Nottis, K. E. (2004). Elementary teachers' beliefs and knowledge about grade retention: How do we know what they know?. Education, 125(2), 173. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Wu, W., West, S. G. & Hughes, J. N. (2010). Effect of grade retention in first grade on psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 135-152. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Yamamoto, K. & Byrnes, D. A. (1987). Primary children's ratings of the stressfulness of experiences. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 2(2), 117-21.
Zyromski, B. & Joseph, A. (2008). Utilizing cognitive behavioral interventions to positively impact academic achievement in middle school students. Journal of School Counseling, 6(15).