Grade retention
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. |
Grade retention is the practice of having a student (usually a general education student, rather than a special education student) repeat a grade level of schooling. A retained student is sometimes referred to as having been "held back." In Canada and the United States, this practice is only used from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Advocates of grade retention argue that this is done so as to help the student learn and sharpen skills such as organization, management, study skills, literacy and academic which are very important before entering the next grade, college and the labor force. However, extensive research has found short term gains but little to no long-term improvement from grade retention, and significant harmful effects. The alternative to grade retention is a policy of social promotion, where students are promoted to the next grade despite their poor grades in order to keep them with social peers. The aim of social promotion is to not harm the students' self-esteem and to keep students together by age (together with their age cohort). An effect of promotion is that it may rid teachers of problem students.
Contents |
[edit] Common arguments against and for grade retention
The following are common arguments regarding this practice.
[edit] Arguments against grade retention
Opponents of "no social promotion" policies do not defend social promotion so much as say that retention is even worse. They argue that retention is not a cost-effective response to poor performance when compared to cheaper or more effective interventions, such as additional tutoring and summer school. They point to a wide range of research findings that show no advantage to, or even harm from, retention, and the tendency for gains from retention to wash out.
Harm from retention cited by these critics include:
- Increased drop-out rates of retained students over time
- No evidence of long-term academic benefit for retained students
- Increased rates of dangerous behaviors such as drinking, drug-use, crime, and teenage pregnancy among retained students as compared with similarly performing promoted students.
Critics of retention also note that retention has hard dollar costs for school systems: requiring a student to repeat a grade is essentially to add one student for a year to the school system, assuming that the student does in fact stay in the system until graduating from high school.
[edit] Arguments for grade retention
Opponents of social promotion argue that it cheats the child of an education. As a result, when the child gets to high school they will probably be forced to be retained or attend summer school. Studies have shown that the high school student that is being retained would be inexcusably painful for a student emotionally because high school students are more vulnerable to change; they are experiencing a lot of pressure because of the transition from adolescence to adulthood.
Opponents of social promotion argue that it has the following negative impacts:
- Students who are promoted cannot do the work (when students can't do the work, it sends a sense of stupidity)
- Students will have many failures in the high school years which will most likely lead to dropping out
- It sends the message to all students that they can get by without working hard
- It forces teachers to deal with under-prepared students while trying to teach the prepared
- It gives parents a false sense of their children's progress
Some hold that most students at the elementary school level don't take their education seriously and therefore retention is most likely not to be effective. Since most middle school students value their education more, retention should be used if they are judged not to have adequate skills before entering high school.
[edit] History
During the 1970s, grade retention fell into disrepute, and the practice of Social promotion gained prominence. Social promotion is the promoting of underperforming students under the principle that maintaining with their peer group is important to success. This trend reversed in the 1980s as concern about academic standards rose. Since then the practice of grade retention has dramatically increased.
The implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act has resulted in an upsurge in the retention of children who score poorly on achievement tests.[1] The practice of making retention decisions on the basis of the results of a single test — called “high-stakes testing” — is widely condemned in scientific literature.[2] Test authors generally advise that their tests are not adequate for high-stakes decisions. [3]
[edit] Outcomes
Some research shows improvement in the year following grade retention, particularly if additional instruction is provided. However, these gains are invariably lost in two to three years. Comparisons between students retained and students promoted who performed equivalently prior to retention decisions show the promoted students performing better. [4] Further, retention impacts poorly on measures of “social adjustment, attitudes toward school, behavioral outcomes, and attendance.”[5] It is a “stronger predictor of delinquency that socioeconomic status, race, or ethnicity,” and is also a strong predictor of drug and alcohol use and teenage pregnancy.[6] Retained students are 2 to 11 times more likely to drop out of school than underachieving but promoted peers.[7]
[edit] Anxiety
The possibility of grade retention has been shown to be an extreme stressor for children at risk. In one study of childhood fears performed in the 1980s, the top three fears for US sixth graders were 1) loss of a parent, 2) going blind, 3) being retained. After two decades of increasing retention practices, a repeat of the study in 2001 found that grade retention was the single greatest fear, higher than loss of a parent or going blind.[8]
[edit] Alternatives
In the US simple social promotion was not held to be an adequate alternative to grade retention. Current theories among academic scholars prefer to address underperformance problems with remedial help. Students with singular needs or disabilities require special teaching approaches, equipment, or care within or outside a regular classroom.
[edit] International
[edit] UK
In the UK, secondary schools commonly use a system of internal academic streaming in which children of the same age are subdivided on the basis of ability, and lower achieving students (those who would traditionally be retained) are taught in different classes, and at a different rate, from higher achieving students, but are kept within their own age group. This system has largely rendered grade retention unnecessary in all but the most exceptional circumstances.[citation needed]
In most cases where streaming alone is insufficient, additional special needs provision is usually seen being preferable to grade reduction. Particularly when behavioral difficulties are involved.
[edit] External links
- Taking Responsibility for Ending Social Promotion: A Guide for Educators and State and Local Leaders, U.S. Department of Education, May 1999
- Retention and Social Promotion: Research and Implications for Policy. ERIC Digest Number 161, December 2000.
[edit] References
- ^ Leckrone, M. J. & B. G. Griffith. (2006) “Retention realities and educational standards.” In Children & Schools 28(1) p53-58
- ^ Goldberg, M. (2005) “Losing students to high-stakes testing.” In Phi delta kappan 86 p389-395;
National Association of School Psychologists, & C. Lehr. (2002) “Large scale assessments and high stakes decisions: Facts, cautions, and guidelines.” Fact sheet, at http://www.naspcenter.org/factsheets/highstakes_fs.html - ^ Goldberg
- ^ Leckrone & Griffith p54
- ^ Mims, K., R. Stock, & C. Phinizy (2001) “Beyond grade retention.” In eJournal of education policy. At http://jep.csus.edu/journal2001/paper2.htm ¶2
- ^ Leckrone & Griffith pp54&55
- ^ Anderson, G. E., A. D. Whipple, & S. R. Jimerson (2002) “Grade retention: Achievement and mental health outcomes.” Position paper, National Association of School Psychologists. http://naspcenter.org
- ^ Shane R. Jimerson, Sarah M. Woehr, Amber M. Kaufman (2002). Grade retention: Achievement and mental health outcomes (PDF). National Association of School Psychologists.
