There is an abundance of research and scholarly analysis examining the efficacy of grade retention.
Research published between 1950 and 2019 produced mixed results regarding the
efficacy of early grade retention on ameliorating children's socioemotional and
achievement needs. Concerns
regarding the quality of many studies of grade retention have been presented in
several reviews and reiterated in recent publications. These methodological
concerns include: (a) data collected 20–30 years ago may be outdated; (b)
characteristics of comparison groups are rarely delineated; (c) comparing pre-
and post-test scores of retained students rather than employing a comparison
group may pose problems; (d) most studies do not consider socio-emotional
outcomes; (e) remedial services during the repeated year are rarely documented,
and (f) most studies do not examine the long-term outcomes associated with
early grade retention. These
methodological considerations limit unequivocal conclusions from any single
study; however, the confluence of results clearly warrants further
consideration. This study provides a metaanalysis of empirical studies
published between 2010–2019 examining the efficacy of grade retention.
Research published between 1950 and 2019 produced mixed results regarding the
efficacy of early grade retention on ameliorating children's socioemotional and
achievement needs. Concerns
regarding the quality of many studies of grade retention have been presented in
several reviews and reiterated in recent publications. These methodological
concerns include: (a) data collected 20–30 years ago may be outdated; (b)
characteristics of comparison groups are rarely delineated; (c) comparing pre-
and post-test scores of retained students rather than employing a comparison
group may pose problems; (d) most studies do not consider socio-emotional
outcomes; (e) remedial services during the repeated year are rarely documented,
and (f) most studies do not examine the long-term outcomes associated with
early grade retention. These
methodological considerations limit unequivocal conclusions from any single
study; however, the confluence of results clearly warrants further
consideration. This study provides a metaanalysis of empirical studies
published between 2010–2019 examining the efficacy of grade retention.
Methodology Used in
Present Study
Present Study
This project began with a systematic search of the
literature to identify studies of grade retention published between 2010 and
2019. Descriptors used to search reference databases included grade retention,
grade repetition, nonpromotion, grade failure, flunked, failed, retained, and
other related synonyms. Results of these searches yielded over 375 references
between 2010–2019. In addition, other studies were identified through a review
of references in each publication obtained, resulting in nearly 520 references
for consideration. The following selection criteria were used to reduce the
bibliography to a core set of research appropriate for this review. To be
included in this review: (a) the research must have been presented in a
professional publication (e.g., journal article or books); (b) the results must have addressed the efficacy of grade
retention (i.e., achievement, socio-emotional, or other); (c) the study must
have included an identifiable comparison group of promoted students; and (d)
the research must have been published during the past decade. Based on the
above selection criteria, 19 articles were included in this review.
literature to identify studies of grade retention published between 2010 and
2019. Descriptors used to search reference databases included grade retention,
grade repetition, nonpromotion, grade failure, flunked, failed, retained, and
other related synonyms. Results of these searches yielded over 375 references
between 2010–2019. In addition, other studies were identified through a review
of references in each publication obtained, resulting in nearly 520 references
for consideration. The following selection criteria were used to reduce the
bibliography to a core set of research appropriate for this review. To be
included in this review: (a) the research must have been presented in a
professional publication (e.g., journal article or books); (b) the results must have addressed the efficacy of grade
retention (i.e., achievement, socio-emotional, or other); (c) the study must
have included an identifiable comparison group of promoted students; and (d)
the research must have been published during the past decade. Based on the
above selection criteria, 19 articles were included in this review.
Procedures for
Summary and Analysis
Summary and Analysis
The plan for summary and analysis of the 19 articles was to
provide the following information: (a) variables used for matching the
comparison group and retained students (i.e., IQ, academic achievement, socioemotional and behavioral adjustment,
socio-economic status, and gender); (b) specification of the age/grade at which
retention and the measurement of outcome variables occurred; (c) designation of
the location of the sample population; (d) a review of analyses comparing
retained students to a matched group (i.e., academic achievement and
socio-emotional and behavioral adjustment); and (e) the overall conclusion of the author(s)
regarding the efficacy of grade
retention. Each study was examined to identify the variables used for
matching and the grade level at which the outcomes were studied. Most studies
included only students retained during kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grades,
however, a few included students retained kindergarten through eighth grade.
Population samples for these studies are distributed across the nation.
provide the following information: (a) variables used for matching the
comparison group and retained students (i.e., IQ, academic achievement, socioemotional and behavioral adjustment,
socio-economic status, and gender); (b) specification of the age/grade at which
retention and the measurement of outcome variables occurred; (c) designation of
the location of the sample population; (d) a review of analyses comparing
retained students to a matched group (i.e., academic achievement and
socio-emotional and behavioral adjustment); and (e) the overall conclusion of the author(s)
regarding the efficacy of grade
retention. Each study was examined to identify the variables used for
matching and the grade level at which the outcomes were studied. Most studies
included only students retained during kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grades,
however, a few included students retained kindergarten through eighth grade.
Population samples for these studies are distributed across the nation.
Statistical
meta-analysis
meta-analysis
Statistical meta-analysis is based on the concept of effect
size (ES). Computation of the effect size is a statistical procedure that
allows researchers to systematically pool the results across studies, to
examine the benefit or harm of an educational
intervention. Meta-analysis procedures result in a measure of the difference
between the two groups expressed in quantitative units that are comparable
across studies. Each effect size is standardized with respect to the comparison
group standard deviation; thus, it is possible to combine the results from
different measures at different grade
levels. A negative effect size suggests that an intervention (retention)
had a negative effect relative to the comparison group of promoted students.
Consistent with past metaanalyses of grade retention, the effect size was
defined as the difference between the mean of the retained group, Xr, and the
mean of the comparison (promoted) group, Xp, divided by the standard deviation
of the comparison group, Sp (ES = (Xr - Xp)/Sp). Group means adjusted for past
differences were used when available and calculated when possible. In studies
where the necessary group means and standard deviations were not included in
the publication, the authors were contacted to provide the necessary data. For
a few analyses, the effect sizes were estimated by working backwards from the
reported significance tests. Many of the results examined in the meta-analysis
fell into two categories: (1) academic achievement and (2)
socio-emotional/behavioral adjustment. Academic
achievement analyses included language, arts, reading, mathematics, and grade point
average. Socioemotional/ behavioral adjustment analyses included social (e.g.,
peer competence), emotional (e.g., internalizing problems), and behavioral
(e.g., externalizing problems). Analyses also included self-concept, general academic adjustment, and attendance.
Because some studies yielded one effect size and others yielded as many as 25,
additional analyses were performed to discern whether any single study had
produced substantial distortions in the effect sizes. For each study, all
individual effect sizes were summed and averaged. These means were used to
recalculate the effect sizes for each of the outcomes. This procedure gives
each study equal weight in determining the overall result. Effect sizes
weighted by study were not found to differ significantly from reported effect
sizes weighted by the number of effects; thus, they do not appear in the
results.
size (ES). Computation of the effect size is a statistical procedure that
allows researchers to systematically pool the results across studies, to
examine the benefit or harm of an educational
intervention. Meta-analysis procedures result in a measure of the difference
between the two groups expressed in quantitative units that are comparable
across studies. Each effect size is standardized with respect to the comparison
group standard deviation; thus, it is possible to combine the results from
different measures at different grade
levels. A negative effect size suggests that an intervention (retention)
had a negative effect relative to the comparison group of promoted students.
Consistent with past metaanalyses of grade retention, the effect size was
defined as the difference between the mean of the retained group, Xr, and the
mean of the comparison (promoted) group, Xp, divided by the standard deviation
of the comparison group, Sp (ES = (Xr - Xp)/Sp). Group means adjusted for past
differences were used when available and calculated when possible. In studies
where the necessary group means and standard deviations were not included in
the publication, the authors were contacted to provide the necessary data. For
a few analyses, the effect sizes were estimated by working backwards from the
reported significance tests. Many of the results examined in the meta-analysis
fell into two categories: (1) academic achievement and (2)
socio-emotional/behavioral adjustment. Academic
achievement analyses included language, arts, reading, mathematics, and grade point
average. Socioemotional/ behavioral adjustment analyses included social (e.g.,
peer competence), emotional (e.g., internalizing problems), and behavioral
(e.g., externalizing problems). Analyses also included self-concept, general academic adjustment, and attendance.
Because some studies yielded one effect size and others yielded as many as 25,
additional analyses were performed to discern whether any single study had
produced substantial distortions in the effect sizes. For each study, all
individual effect sizes were summed and averaged. These means were used to
recalculate the effect sizes for each of the outcomes. This procedure gives
each study equal weight in determining the overall result. Effect sizes
weighted by study were not found to differ significantly from reported effect
sizes weighted by the number of effects; thus, they do not appear in the
results.
Brief Overview of
Findings
Findings
Most studies published during the past decade utilized a
combination of IQ, academic achievement, socio-emotional adjustment, SES, and
gender to match groups or control analyses between the comparison group and the
retained students. Of the 19 studies included, 15 examined outcomes through
grade seven; only five included outcomes during eighth grade and beyond.
Overall, results of the metaanalyses yielded average effect sizes indicating
that the retained groups were .30 standard deviation units below the matched
comparison groups. The average effect size for socio-emotional/ behavioral
adjustment (-.19) and academic achievement (-.40) favored the matched
comparison group over the retained group of students. The results indicate that
the greatest differences between groups were evident on measures of attendance,
reading, mathematics, language, and emotional adjustment
(-.65, -.56, -.49, -.40, and -.25, respectively). In regards to the authors'
conclusions pertaining to the efficacy of grade retention as an intervention,
of the 19 studies comparing retained students with a matched control group, the
authors of 15 studies (79%) concluded that grade retention is ineffective as an
intervention for academic achievement
and socio-emotional adjustment.
combination of IQ, academic achievement, socio-emotional adjustment, SES, and
gender to match groups or control analyses between the comparison group and the
retained students. Of the 19 studies included, 15 examined outcomes through
grade seven; only five included outcomes during eighth grade and beyond.
Overall, results of the metaanalyses yielded average effect sizes indicating
that the retained groups were .30 standard deviation units below the matched
comparison groups. The average effect size for socio-emotional/ behavioral
adjustment (-.19) and academic achievement (-.40) favored the matched
comparison group over the retained group of students. The results indicate that
the greatest differences between groups were evident on measures of attendance,
reading, mathematics, language, and emotional adjustment
(-.65, -.56, -.49, -.40, and -.25, respectively). In regards to the authors'
conclusions pertaining to the efficacy of grade retention as an intervention,
of the 19 studies comparing retained students with a matched control group, the
authors of 15 studies (79%) concluded that grade retention is ineffective as an
intervention for academic achievement
and socio-emotional adjustment.
Conclusion
This meta-analysis includes studies published between 2005
and 2010 provides additional information regarding the effectiveness of grade retention. In particular, these
studies fail to demonstrate that grade retention provides greater benefits to
students with academic or adjustment difficulties than does promotion to the
next grade. Thus, it seems practical to move beyond the question “to retain or
not to retain”. Available evidence suggests that neither social promotion nor
grade retention will solve our nation's educational ills nor facilitate the academic success of children. Instead,
attention must be directed toward empirically supported prevention and remedial
programs. It is suggested that educational
professionals, scholars, and politicians commit to implementing and
investigating specific prevention and remedial intervention strategies designed
to facilitate educational achievement and socio-emotional adjustment of
children at risk of school failure. It is time to move beyond the rhetoric
regarding retention and social promotion; we should seriously consider the
results of empirical research
examining the efficacy of grade retention. Educational
research provides valuable insight regarding the effectiveness of various
prevention and academic intervention programs, these studies warrant further
consideration as we attempt to enhance the educational outcomes of at-risk
children. Considering the results of research from the past decade, grade
retention fails to demonstrate effectiveness and would not be considered to be
an empirically supported intervention.
and 2010 provides additional information regarding the effectiveness of grade retention. In particular, these
studies fail to demonstrate that grade retention provides greater benefits to
students with academic or adjustment difficulties than does promotion to the
next grade. Thus, it seems practical to move beyond the question “to retain or
not to retain”. Available evidence suggests that neither social promotion nor
grade retention will solve our nation's educational ills nor facilitate the academic success of children. Instead,
attention must be directed toward empirically supported prevention and remedial
programs. It is suggested that educational
professionals, scholars, and politicians commit to implementing and
investigating specific prevention and remedial intervention strategies designed
to facilitate educational achievement and socio-emotional adjustment of
children at risk of school failure. It is time to move beyond the rhetoric
regarding retention and social promotion; we should seriously consider the
results of empirical research
examining the efficacy of grade retention. Educational
research provides valuable insight regarding the effectiveness of various
prevention and academic intervention programs, these studies warrant further
consideration as we attempt to enhance the educational outcomes of at-risk
children. Considering the results of research from the past decade, grade
retention fails to demonstrate effectiveness and would not be considered to be
an empirically supported intervention.
C. Palmer is
a teacher, success coach, trainer, Certified Master of Web Copywriting and
founder of https://Ebookschoice.com. Jeff is a
prolific writer, Senior Research Associate and Infopreneur having written many
eBooks, articles and special reports.
