The Synthesis of Degree Retention Research

If the children are not up to the task, is it better to stop them or move them forward? To obtain answers, the experience of first-, second-, and third-grade repeaters and, as a group, children falling behind in grades four through seven were examined. Their academic progress and attitudes were monitored from the fall of first grade, before anyone failed, through the end of seventh grade (for repeaters) or eighth grade (for kids who never failed). . The effects of retention were evaluated in many ways and, although the results were complex, it was concluded that, in most cases, the repeaters were doing better in primary school after repetition than before, and that these advances were generally sustained for a number of years (although to a diminishing extent). In most comparisons, repeating a grade was associated with better attitudes toward oneself and school. These findings contradicted the results of most similar contemporary studies. However, despite the benefits of retention on school performance and self-esteem, repeating students are more likely to drop out of school. In fact, repeating a grade in increases the risk of dropping out, and subsequently the risk of not finishing it, by three to eight times.

Children lagging behind in the upper grades and multiple repeaters are especially likely to leave school without qualifications, but single repeaters are also at high risk. One study found that double repeaters and first grade repeaters received less help when repeating a grade, so it is not surprising that they have high levels of dropouts and non-completion. But individual repeaters who were retained in second grade also drop out in greater numbers than expected, and in at least one comparison so do third grade repeaters. If repeating a grade in primary school increases children’s school performance and boosts their self-esteem, why would it later increase the risk of dropping out? The fact that this risk is especially pronounced among lagging repeaters in grades 4-7, as we found, is significant. When these children were retained, they were not academically far behind their promoted classmates as previously retained children were. If retention were simply an indicator of relevant academic difficulties, then repeating first or second grade, and not grades 4-7, would pose the biggest problems later on, but that is not the case.

If not academic, then what? The social side of education seems a likely candidate. The grade takes children out of retention from the prescribed schedule of grade progressions in a rigid grading system. This makes them conspicuous and complicates their social integration. Being “out of time” at school can cause problems at any age, but the peculiar conditions of adolescence, the onset of puberty, and the impending transition to middle school are likely to exacerbate them. The early years of adolescence (usually between the ages of 12 and 14) are a time of greatest shyness, when “fitting in” is paramount, but “fitting in” is not easy for late repeaters. The separation from their friends is still fresh when it comes time to change school levels, and the disruption the peer groups suffer is twofold: their age peers move on to high school while they stay behind with classmates. younger who may be seen as lower in the age/status hierarchy. Since repeating is less common in the upper elementary years than in first and second grades, there are relatively few age peers available in late repeater classes to help ease their adjustment. The academic standing of repeaters began to decline as they moved from elementary school to high school. Reflecting the impact of the transition, their grades and test scores began to fade at that point, and though they generally stayed ahead of where they originated, there was little room for them to absorb additional setbacks.

Therefore, the situation for repeaters in middle school was precarious and even greater challenges awaited them in the transition to ninth grade. Any school transition is difficult, but the transition to high school is especially difficult. Relative to middle schools, high schools are larger, more bureaucratic, impersonal, and academically demanding. Under such circumstances, even well-integrated, high-achieving students often experience difficulties. And the repeaters? Their academic and social level is low, which leaves them especially vulnerable. Consider this “symptom”: In their ninth year of school, would-be dropouts averaged 45.9 absences compared to an average of 14.3 absences among non-dropouts. With 47 recorded absences, these students were missing approximately one day in four, which was interpreted as a sign that the dropout process had already begun. The new evidence presented here showing that grade repetition raises the risk of dropping out certainly reinforces the conviction that retaining children should be a last resort. But as before, it is still believed that repeating a year may be appropriate when more time is needed to consolidate skills and master material missed the first time. Still, for most children in most circumstances, traditional retention (ie, repeating a grade without supplemental services) should be rare. But candidates for retention are typically far behind academically and often exhibit serious behavioral problems. In the absence of effective intervention, many of these children are on a path that will lead them to drop out of school, whether they are retained or not. Ignoring the problem (ie, simply moving them to the next grade level) and hoping for the best is certainly a formula for failure. Kids who are far behind and struggling don’t suddenly jump ahead, even though what it takes to catch up is a boost.

The first priority must be to prevent children from reaching the point where they are candidates for retention in the first place. Many poor and minority children start school late, but it is known that high-quality preschool programs can improve school readiness. More of these programs are needed, and more disadvantaged children should have access to them. Similarly, there is a need for high-quality full-day kindergarten and supplemental services to help preserve the gains made as a result of those early interventions. Children learn at different rates. However, everyone is expected to be “ready” for first grade at age six; they are expected to progress at the same rate each year thereafter from one grade to the next; and within the year, they are expected to master the curriculum in roughly the same amount of time: nine months, fall through spring. The current calendar-based model of schooling is severely paced; kids who don’t catch up when the teacher is forced to move on to the next lesson plan fall behind, and if they fall far behind at the end of the year, then what? In case these children move forward knowing they are not ready; Or should they be held back knowing that most won’t get enough help to keep up later? Either way, they are stuck in the same structure and many will simply recede further.

The challenge is to build more flexibility into the system without the stigma and other problems that come with being “out of time” for one’s age. Most school systems have not been particularly imaginative in addressing the needs of older students, and some of the most popular approaches risk making things worse rather than better. So-called alternative schools for older, pregnant or parenting students often suffer from an “image” problem, and usually with only one or two in the area, there can also be logistical problems. But beyond that, it’s asking a lot of someone who takes on the heavy lifting or parenting responsibilities, as many repeaters do, to commit to the traditional school schedule, and even then, he or she will still be in company. of a student body preoccupied with the traditional concerns of adolescence, hardly a pleasant adjustment. Current arrangements segregate and marginalize these young people. Breaking down these barriers requires some relaxation of the too-tight link between “age” and “grade.” Doing so would likely improve the graduation prospects of kids who are a year or two behind, and certainly give educators more options to address their needs. Under this accounting, the problem is not so much grade retention as the structure within which grade retention is embedded, a structure that makes deviant children perfectly normal.