Improving Grade
Retention Policy, Practice, and Results
Dear Colleagues,
Last week, I was sitting in on
a series of meetings between the multidisciplinary Student Assistance Team
(involving the Principal, School Psychologist, Counselor, Academic Intervention
Specialists, and Special Education teachers) and the respective grade-level teams
in its elementary school. The purpose of
the meetings was to review the current academic status and progress of every
student in the school- - including the results of their interim and progress
monitoring assessments, attendance, behavior, and related issues.
During the discussions of
students not making academic progress, the possibility of retaining these
specific students “for another year” continually arose.
Not just a few times,
but a lot of times.
Over time, I got the sense that
grade retention was one of the available interventions that the teachers
and support staff routinely considered.
Moreover, when I asked for a
description of the “typical” process for retained students the next year, I was
told that these students would simply have an opportunity to experience the grade-level
academic work for the next, repeated school year all over again. The implicit belief was that these students
would be more ready to learn and master this work when given a second chance to
experience the curriculum and instruction another time. . . because they were
another year older.
In my experience, this process
and belief represents what most elementary schools in the country do when
retaining their students.
In my experience at the
secondary level, retention is related more to a student’s class status or standing. At the high school level, if students
do not pass enough courses and credits, then they are “kept back,” and do not
graduate to the next (sophomore, junior, or senior class) year.
Regardless of their class
standing, however- - if the school schedule permits- - they still can take the
next course in the sequence of courses they have already passed. For example, while considered a “sophomore”
due to total credits earned, a student may still be able to take a junior-level
math course if s/he passed the prerequisite sophomore math course.
Another high school “retention”
option is “credit recovery.” We probably
should address this issue at another time.
Suffice it to say that most
credit recovery programs are dumping grounds.
There is very little direct instruction going on, they do not provide
students with needed academic skill remediation (which is often why the
students are failing in the first place), and there is good research to show
that some students do not learn as well through computer-based instruction
(even though they may “pass the course”).
At the middle school level,
grade retention practices typically reflect more of an elementary than a high
school approach. Thus, if a 7th
grade student does not pass enough courses or attain enough credits, they most
often are retained at that 7th grade level- - where they have to
retake a few courses, even though they passed them the first time.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Retention is Not an Intervention: Negative
Short- and Long-term Outcomes
To begin, I want to emphasize
that I am not against grade retention.
While it is used too often and too indiscriminately, I believe that grade
retention should be:
* Based on a data-based, functional
assessment process where . . .
* Specific strategic
instructional or intervention approaches- - in the student’s area(s) of
weakness- - are planfully integrated into the retention year and process. . . where
* Students continue to receive
instruction at their skill or instructional level in their areas of grade-level
or above strength (so that they can continue to progress in these areas). . . and
* Where all of the instructional
and intervention strategies and approaches are progressively evaluated on their
ability to help the student learn, master, and apply targeted skills.
_ _ _ _ _
Let’s look at some of the negative
outcomes of grade retention that result when different parts of this statement
are ignored or contradicted.
Negative Outcome #1. Retention May Negatively Impact Students’ Areas
of Strength. When students re-take
all of their coursework during a
retention year, they may be “held back” in curricular areas where they are
skilled, and that are not the reason for the retention.
For example, consider some 3rd
grade students who are functioning a year behind in reading/language arts at
the end of the school year, but on grade level in all other academic
areas. If these students are retained in
3rd grade and have to take all of their coursework again at the
beginning 3rd grade level, they will be receiving a year of
(wasted) instruction in (for example) math, science, and social studies
in content and skills areas that they have already mastered.
Even if these students were a
full-year behind in reading/language arts, but only a half-year behind in
math, science, and social studies, the first half of the retention year still
would be redundant in these latter academic areas.
Solution. While not easy to coordinate, these students
need to be taught at their instructional level in (given our example) math,
science, and social studies from the
beginning of the retention year so that they can continue to progress
naturally in these areas of strength.
If this causes doubt in the
wisdom of retaining these students, that would be appropriate.
_ _ _ _ _
Negative Outcome #2. Retention May Negatively Impact Students’
Motivation. There clearly are times
when students are working as hard and making as much academic progress as they
can. For these students, the “retention
year” significantly impacts their confidence and motivation- - and becomes
counter-productive. That is, during the
retention year, they actually perform even worse than before, and fall even
further behind.
For example, consider the
students that I call the 8 in 10 Students. These are students- - whether due to “nature”
or “nurture”- - who are consistently making 8 months of academic progress
for every 10 months in school. At
some point, the gap between these students’ functional skills and their grade
placements become so large that their continued academic progress is
challenged.
While it may appear “logical”
to retain these students due to their skill gaps, the unintended result may be
a “hit” to their confidence, social status, and motivation.
Thus, this academic
“intervention” may result in the students emotionally “shutting down,” or
behaviorally “acting out.” Over time,
these social, emotional, and behavioral issues may overshadow the original
academic issues- - and social, emotional, or behavioral interventions may
become necessary in order for the student to benefit from any concurrent academic
interventions.
At the secondary level, this
situation is particularly prevalent.
Many students in alternative education settings or programs, often have
a grade retention in their history.
Solution. If schools can help the 8 in 10 Students
to maintain their academic progress (or “speed of acquisition”), these students
will graduate, could go to college, and will become productive employees. In order to do this, instruction will need to
strategically include remediation, accommodation, modification, and assistive
supports. The vocational interests of
the students also will need to be programmed in, and the students may need five
years of high school instead of four years.
However, the five years of high
school will not occur due to grade retention.
The five years will occur as part of a systematic plan that provides
these students the instruction and, as appropriate, vocational and
apprenticeship experiences that they need (and want) so that they learn,
master, and are able to apply their academic skills across the curricula.
_ _ _ _ _
Negative Outcome #3. Retention May Deny Students Needed
Instructional Adaptations or Interventions.
When schools believe that a “retention is an intervention,” and when
they do not understand the root causes underlying a student’s academic
struggles, they may believe that the “second opportunity” to learn material
during the retention year is all that is needed.
However- - based on diagnostic
assessments completed with students as soon as their academic challenges are
evident- - it may be that some students need strategically-selected remediation,
accommodation, modification, and/or assistive supports in order to learn and
master their skills. . . and that a year of retention will not result in the
desired learning or mastery.
Moreover, the diagnostic
assessments may result in recommendations for specific interventions to address
students’ specific learning or skill deficits.
While that may be hard to
believe in our “multi-tiered, response-to-intervention” world, I have written a
number of Blogs [CLICK HERE for a recent example] and cited U.S. Department of
Education-sponsored evaluation studies that have demonstrated that the
“national” MTSS/RtI framework is flawed, and that most of the “Tier II”
interventions are not based on individual diagnostic assessments.
Solution. As noted, schools need to complete diagnostic
functional assessments to determine the root causes underlying a student’s
academic struggles prior to any retention decision. In many cases, these functional assessments
should include diagnostic assessment.
Schools should not be
using a year of grade retention as an “experiment” or a “data gathering
opportunity” to determine students’ need for subsequent functional and/or
diagnostic assessments. That is not only
inappropriate, it is unethical. Or said
a different way: What teacher would
allow this with his or her own child or adolescent?
_ _ _ _ _
Negative Outcome #4. Retention May Negatively Impact Students’
Potential for High School Graduation.
One cumulative negative effect of all of the negative effects above
involves student disengagement, school avoidance and truancy, and eventual
school drop-out.
However, some students stay in
high school, but do not graduate. When
graduation is contingent on passing a high-stakes proficiency test alone, and
when grade retention has substituted for needed remediation, accommodation,
modification, and/or assistive supports, we clearly must rethink this process.
This, then, brings us to the
research on grade retention.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Some Recent Research on Grade
Retention
Past research has shown few, if
any, long-term student benefits due to grade retention, and the potential for
some of the negative outcomes cited above.
Among the typical results:
* Retention is not helpful at
all grades, including kindergarten
* Retention is higher when
students change schools to transition and enter Grade 1, Middle School, and
High School
* While there may be an initial
achievement “bump,” these initial positive effects tend to diminish over time
* Most schools do not provide
specific interventions during the retention year
* Some decision-making teams
use data selectively to support their preferences for or against retention
* Retention almost doubles a
student’s potential for dropping out of school, while two retentions almost guarantee
this
* There is a negative
correlation between retention and race, gender, SES, and school outcomes
Beyond this, John Hattie has
conducted over 800 meta-analyses involving 50,000 studies and more than 200 million
students over the past 15 years.
Focusing on factors that influence students’ achievement, he has
determined that grade retention ranks 136 of the 138 factors that he has
investigated.
According to Hattie: “The
overall effects from retention are among the lowest of all educational
interventions. It can be vividly noted
that retention is overwhelmingly disastrous.
The effects of retention, based on 861 studies was -0.15- - a decline in
achievement of .15 standard deviations on achievement tests when a child is
retained.
_ _ _ _ _
Finally, a recent Duke study
(February, 2014) documented an interdependent “ripple effect” where the
middle schools in North Carolina that had more students who had previously been
retained had more students who were suspended, had substance abuse problems,
fights, and classroom disruptions.
Involving more than 79,000 students in these NC middle schools, this
study looked not only at the students who had been retained, but how their
presence in a school influenced their classmates.
More specifically, if 20% of
the 7th graders in a middle school were older than their peers, the
probability that other students in the school would commit an infraction
or be suspended increased by 200%- - controlling for SES and parents’
level of education. While these
discipline increases occurred for all student subgroups, they were more
pronounced among white students and girls of all races.
The Duke study particularly
noted North Carolina’s Read to Achieve policy whereby 3rd
grade students not reading at grade level by the end of third grade are
retained after interventions and summer reading camp experiences have not
brought them up to a 4th grade readiness level. While the Duke study does not say that these
students should not be retained, it does note that the widespread practice of
retaining students can have negative effects on student behavior and school
climate later on at the middle school level.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
What’s Drives the Grade Retention
Process (and Needs
to Change)?
In order to establish more
effective retention practices, it is important to understand (and change) the negative
forces that are currently present.
Among these forces are the
following:
* State or District Policy
* School and Staff
Decision-Making Processes
* Personnel, Resources, Time,
and Scheduling
* Tradition and/or Not Knowing
What you do not Know
Relative to State Policy,
over a dozen states now require the indiscriminate retention of students,
especially at the end of 3rd grade, who are not reading “at grade
level.” In a previous Blog [CLICK HERE FOR LINK], I argued that these policies make no sense especially when the
retention decision (a) is based on a single, high-stakes state standards or proficiency
test, and (b) cannot be altered when functional or diagnostic assessments
demonstrate that the retention will be counter-productive.
I also questioned the origin and developmental validity of retention decisions
at the 3rd grade level, and wondered whether such decisions should
occur instead at the end of 4th grade.
Recommendation. With the passage of the new Elementary and
Secondary Education Act this past December, and the law’s shift of power to the
states, I strongly recommend that our state departments of education and state
legislatures revisit and (as needed) revise any existing school
retention policies based on the recommendations in this message.
Relative to District Policy,
a similar review should occur so that retention decisions are research-informed,
student-specific, data-based, intervention-focused, and outcome-driven.
_ _ _ _ _
Relative to School and Staff
Decision-Making Processes, the importance of conducting functional and
diagnostic assessments to determine the underlying reasons for students’
academic challenges has been emphasized throughout this discussion.
Below are a number of
“high-hit” reasons why some students are academically failing that should be
factored into any retention decision:
* Poor or inconsistent
teacher instruction. Studies have
clearly shown that schools with high percentages of students living in poverty
often have teachers with less experience who remain at the school for shorter
periods of time. Other schools have
teachers who are absent frequently, who are not well-matched to their grade
levels or subject areas, or who have so many different skill levels of students
in their classes that effective instruction is virtually impossible.
Given this, some unsuccessful
students are actually “Instructional Casualties.” That is, their
achievement gap is largely due to past or present ineffective instruction. Retaining
“Instructional Casualty” students should be seriously questioned.
_ _ _ _ _
* Poor curricula or
student-curricula matching. When,
for example, curricula are not based on sound pedagogical science, or are not
well-matched to students’ cognitive-developmental levels and skills, students
do not learn efficiently or effectively.
Student learning also may be undermined when school curricula focus less
on “mastery and trans-disciplinary instruction,” and more on “teaching to the
test.”
Given this, some unsuccessful students
are actually “Curricular Casualties.” That is, largely due to curricular flaws, they
have not mastered the prerequisite skills needed to master advanced skills, or
the foundational skills (e.g., in reading, math, and written expression) needed
to master advanced (secondary level) coursework. Retaining
“Curricular Casualty” students should be seriously questioned.
_ _ _ _ _
* School attendance. This past October (2015), the Obama
administration and the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services,
Housing and Urban Development, and Justice launched the “Every Student, Every
Day” initiative to eliminate chronic absenteeism. Noting that an estimated 5 to 7.5 million
students are chronically absent each year (defined as missing at least 18 days
per year), the most-concerning long-term effects included (a) poor academic
progress- - especially in reading, and (b) the high potential for dropping out
of high school.
Clearly, some students fail
because they are not exposed to effective instruction and sound curricula due
to chronic absenteeism. Unless “catch-up”
interventions are successful, retaining
these students at the elementary level may be an option (if you can get
them to school).
At the secondary level, students may need to re-take critical courses
or classes. Hopefully, this can be
accomplished on a course-by-course basis- - so that students can advance in the
course areas they have passed, and only re-take the courses that they have
failed.
As part of the functional
assessment at both the elementary and secondary levels, the reasons for
a student’s chronic absenteeism need to be determined. At times, the school absence problem is not
in the student’s control (e.g., medical, psychological, transportation, family,
safety issues). In these cases, if the
student demonstrates mastery of the “missed” course material, retention
should NOT be used as a punishment.
Even for students who are motivationally
refusing to attend school, there are times- - if they can demonstrate mastery
of the academic material- - when a strategic decision not to retain
re-establishes the student’s motivation and results (long-term) in a “win-win”
outcome.
The discussion above is one
reason why state and local retention policies need to be flexible- - so
that retention decisions can be sensitively and strategically applied to the
individual factors present in each individual student’s case.
_ _ _ _ _
Relative to Personnel,
Resources, Time, and Scheduling- - while I am sensitive to these issues, none
of them should represent the primary reason why any student is retained.
But beyond this, schools need
to think about how they are using their existing resources- - because sometimes
the “interventions” provided to underachieving students are based on flawed
models or are staffed inappropriately (see below).
If students are not making
academic progress because of flawed or inappropriately staffed interventions,
their “lack of progress” should NOT be used as a rationale for retention.
For example, a recent November, 2015 federal
report, Evaluation of Response to Intervention Practices for Elementary
School Reading, was commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute
of Education Sciences [CLICK LINK HERE].
The largest federal investigation of its kind, the study involved
approximately 24,000 first through third grade students in 146 schools in 13
states.
Comparing 1st through 3rd
grade students receiving Tier II literacy intervention services with
randomly-chosen matched students who needed these interventions but did not
receive them, the results showed that:
* The 1st graders receiving Tier
II interventions performed 11 percent lower on the reading assessments
than the comparison students who barely missed qualifying for the Tier II
intervention approaches; and
* The 2nd and 3rd
graders receiving Tier II interventions experienced no significant reading
benefits- - although they did not lose ground.
* 37% of the students receiving Tier II
interventions in Grade 1, 28% in Grade 2, and 22% in Grade 3 received these
services from paraprofessionals- - not certified teachers or reading
or other specialists.
Once again: If students
are not making academic progress because of flawed or inappropriately staffed
interventions, their “lack of progress” should NOT be used as a rationale for
retention.
_ _ _ _ _
Relative to Tradition and/or
Not Knowing What you do not Know- - once again, these are not appropriate
reasons or excuses for making (retention) decisions that impact some students’
lives for the rest of their lives.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
A few more statistics and
realities:
* 14 states and the District of
Columbia have 3rd grade retention policies in place or pending.
* Nearly 1 million students
(2.3% of those enrolled) were retained during the 2009 – 2010 school year in
our country. In our country’s largest
7,000 school districts, more than 141,000 of these students were in
kindergarten through Grade 3- - 26,950 in 3rd grade alone.
* During the same 2009 – 2010 school
year, 49% of the retained 3rd graders and 56% of the retained 4th
grade students in this country were African American- - even though less than
20% of the total school population was African American.
* In all, African American
students were nearly 3 times more likely to be retained than Caucasian
students. Hispanic students were twice
as likely. And, low SES students were 5 times more likely to be held back.
Just one of the implications
here is the financial cost of a grade retention.
In 2005, the Center for Child
and Family Policy at Duke University published a Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Grade Retention. In making their
calculations, they factored in the cost of the retention year itself, along
with costs related to: (a) future remedial and special education services; (b) student
drop-out resulting in a lower paying job or welfare; (c) health factors and the
potential to commit crimes; and (e) having children living in poverty- - and
renewing the same possible cycle through them.
If we only looked at the
costs of the retention year itself: Let’s
use the figure above of 1 million students retained in a single school year,
and assume that even 25% of those were appropriate. If you multiply 750,000 students times an
estimated $8,000 for the annual cost of educating a student in this country,
you would end up with a cost of $6,000,000,000- - that is, 6 BILLION
dollars.
While I understand that some of
these costs are passive (because more teachers or resources are not necessarily
added to deal with a retained student), what if some of this money was used to
prevent student underachievement and to address it effectively and early on
when it occurred?
_ _ _ _ _
And so, to end where I began:
I am not against grade
retention. But when it occurs, it
should be:
* Based on a data-based, functional
assessment process where. . .
* Specific strategic
instructional or intervention approaches- - in the student’s area(s) of
weakness- - are planfully integrated into the retention year and process. . . where
* Students continue to receive
instruction at their skill or instructional level in their areas of grade-level
or above strength (so that they can continue to progress in these areas). . . and
* Where all of the instructional
and intervention strategies and approaches are progressively evaluated on their
ability to help the student learn, master, and apply targeted skills.
Retention is NOT an
intervention. It only presents the
opportunity for the right instructional or intervention approaches to be
presented to a student to help him or her succeed. But if another year at the same grade level
will not benefit a student, it should not be required. And we cannot answer this question until we
fully understand the underlying reasons that explain a student’s lack of
academic progress.
When
educators are confronted by one-size-fits-all policies that are counter-productive
to many students’ achievement, we need to question those policies and adapt our
practices.
This
is about the students- - not about policies that may be well-intended, but are
not student-tested or student-friendly.
_ _ _ _ _
I
hope that this information is useful to as you, and I appreciate everything that you do for student learners in our
country. As always, if I can help your
school(s) or district in any of the areas, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Feel free to forward this Blog link to your
colleagues.
Best,
Howie
