Nan Barton, Nicole Campbell, and Brandy Saffell

In the early American one-room school house, the few children that attended learned at their own rate. Grade retention has been a century long process. The grouping of children with promotion dependent on mastery of content became common in the U.S. elementary schools about 1860, and although there are no exact national data, numerous studies suggest that retention has increased (Owings & Magliaro, 1998).

Children that are retained seem to come from lower-income female-headed households with no previous preschool experience, to have uninvolved and poorly educated mothers, to be small in stature and to be ethnic minority and/or language minority children, and to have been exposed to household smoking ( Zepeda, 1993; Byrd & Weitzman, 1994; Potter, 1996; "Can Retention, " 1998; Owings & Magliaro, 1998).

Teachers and schools might recommend retention for some of the following reasons: poor academic skills, immaturity, small size, frequent moves or absences, or limited English language skills ( "Should My Child," 1996).

Although promotion using a standardized test is not appropriate for low ability children, this test is a basic for grade promotion (Hartke, 1999). Many state governors and even President Clinton in his 1997 and 1998 State of the Union Addresses have called for an increase of retention of students with low scores on standardized tests and should not be socially promoted ( NJCLD, 1998; "Fail the Test, " 1999; Hartke, 1999).

Retention has been the topic of much debate for some time. The positives, the negatives, potential alternatives- these have all been extensively researched. Each time the research reflects the same idea- retention has no benefit for the child and it might actually have multiple negative effects.

James Rust and Kathryn Wallace conducted a study pairing low achieving students that had been promoted with students who were either placed in transitional classes or retained. Their achievement test scores were compared in years two, three, and four of the study. The results of the study indicate that both groups experienced higher test scores in the year immediately following the retention, but after that, scores leveled out. These findings show no benefit to retaining a student. Rust and Wallace continue to saying, "Besides being expensive, retention has yet to prove itself effective" (Rust and Wallace, 1993).

In the article Grade Retention: A History of Failure, William Owings and Susan Magliaro assert that grade level retention has no academic advantages. They also suggest that retention had no value for students, as the academic gain of those who were retained was smaller than the gains of their promoted counterparts. Finally, Owings and Magliaro state that of the sixty-six articles written on the topic of retention between 1990 and 1997, only one is written in support of this practice. What an astounding statistic!

Les Potter also examines the question of why educators continue to retain students in spite of the fact that retention has proven ineffective. He states, "Today, retention remains the major strategy used by educators to cure academic failure. This practice persists although the research and literature proves it harmful to students in terms of both achievement and personal adjustment" (Potter, 1996).

Shepard and Smith have also studied the effects of retention on achievement, personal adjustment, self-concept, and attitudes towards school. Building on the aforementioned finding, their research shows that "the negative effect of retention is greater for achievement measures than for personal adjustment, self-concept, or attitude towards school" (Shepard and Smith, 1989).

In spite of all the negative research surrounding retention, there are perhaps some positive effects.

• Retention provides a child with the opportunity to refresh, relearn and acquire new skills.
• If retention is presented correctly, it can give students a positive ‘I can do this’ attitude that is likely to increase academic achievement in the years to come.

• Retention can be viewed as nipping the problem in the bud.
• Social promotion sets children up for repeated failures and perpetuates low self-esteem.
• Social promotion maintains a state of humiliation.
• Students who are promoted without the necessary academic foundation become embarrassed, hurt, and angry, making it harder to them to ‘catch up.’

 The negative effects include:

• The learning problems that contributed to retention persist, as they are back at the bottom of the class in two or three years.
• Retained students rarely make significant academic progress in the retained year.
• Students who are retained and low-achieving students who are promoted perform the same academically, but those who are retained are more likely to experience measurable mental health problems.
• Retention damages self-concept.
• Retention creates an extremely negative attitude towards school.
• Students who are retained one time are 21 to 27 percent more likely to drop out of school.
• Adolescents who are older than the other children in their grade are at an increased risk for behavioral problems, emotional distress, earlier sexual activity, and substance abuse.

Therefore, based on the research, it is evident that, in most cases, retention works to the detriment of the child.

 Instead of retaining a student, teachers, students, and parents have access to other alternatives that will produce better outcomes in the lives of the students. There are a wide variety of alternatives that can deter the need to retain a student or take the place of retention. The first alternative involves making sure that all students have some type of prekindergarten encounters. One example is the Head Start Program which is a federal matching grant program that aims to improve the learning skills, social skills, and health status of poor children so that they can begin schooling on an equal footing with their more advantaged peers (Curie et al, 1995). The Head Start Program as well as other prekindergarten programs can deter the need for retention by providing students with a solid educational backbone to lean on. Another alternative instead of retention is delayed school entry. Delayed school entry involves deterring children’s entry into kindergarten by one year beyond the traditional chronological age of their classmates (May et al, 1995). Through a variety of studies and literature reviews, the article suggests that students who delay entry into kindergarten are less likely to be retained in a later grade and require less remediation of school subjects. A third alternative is social promotion. This is an option, which provides for the advancement for all students to the age appropriate grade level (McDonald et al, 1992). Social promotion can provide opportunities for students to function in their "comfort zone" and complete more successful tasks. The last alternatives to retention involve specific programs such as Success for All, the Reading Recovery Program, and the Accelerated Schools Project. Each of these programs helps diminish the need to retain students. Success for All’s goal is to provide students with resources so that they reach third grade on time. The Reading Recovery Program’s focus is on reading. This program identifies at risk first graders and provides them with extra support. The last program, Accelerated Schools Project, focuses on speeding up the instructional pace for at risk students instead of "dumbing down" the curriculum (Thomas, 1992). All the above mentioned programs and ideas are useful alternatives to try before thinking about retention.

Books:

Shepard, L., & Smith, M. (1989). Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on Retention. London: The Falmer Press.

Thomas, A. (1992). Alternatives to Retention: If Flunking Doesn’t Work, What Does? Eugene, Oregon: Oregon School Study Council.

NJCLD Press Release on grade retention. (1998). National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. http:/www.Idonline.org/njcld/retention_pr.html.

Should My Child Repeat A Grade? (1996). National Association of School Psychologists. http://ericps.crc.uiuc.edu/npin/respar/texts/parschoo/repetd96.html.

Byrd, R., & Weitzman, M. (1994). Predictors of early grade retention among children in theUnited States. Pediatrics, 93, 481-487.

Can retention be good for a student? (1998, March). NEA Today, 16, 43.

Currie, J., & Thomas, D. (1995). Does Head Start make a difference? American Economic Review, 85, 341-364.

Fail the test, miss the grade. (1999, April 10). Economist, 351, 8114, 27-28.

Hartke, K. (1999). The misuse of tests for retention. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 28, 22-24.

May, D., & Kundert, D. (1995). Does delayed school entry reduce later grade retentions and use of special education services? Remedial & Special Education, 16, 288-294.

McDonald, L., & Bean, L. (1992). Thinking of retaining a student? Try one or more of the twenty-five alternatives to retention. Education, 112, 567-570.

Owings, W., & Magliaro, S. (1998). Grade retention: A history of failure. Educational Leadership, 56, 86-88.

Potter, Les. (1996). Examining the negative effects of retention in our schools. Education, 117, 268-270.

Rust, James., & Wallace, K. (1993). Effects of grade level retention for four years. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 20, 162-166.

Zepeda, M. (1993). An exploratory study of demographic characteristics, retention, and developmentally appropriate practice in kindergarten. Child Study Journal, 23, 57-78.