Retention is not an Intervention
By Liz Williams, WS/FCS School Psychologist
In response to our defined district goals, it is important for us to reflect upon our current practices and whether or not they support meeting these goals. Additionally, with increasing pressure to meet grade level standards and a call to end social promotion there has been a renewed emphasis on grade retention as an educational remedy for underachieving children.
Sometimes children are recommended for retention when their academic performance is low, if they fail to meet grade-level performance standards, if they seem socially immature, display behavior problems, or are just beginning to learn English. Occasionally, students who have missed many school days because they were ill or because of frequent moves are recommended for retention. We need to examine whether or not these retention practices are effective or not.
“6th grade students rated grade retention as the single most stressful life event, higher than the loss of a parent or going blind”
Research indicates that neither grade retention nor social promotion is likely to result in positive outcomes. Having a child repeat a grade that they were not successful at the first time is not likely going to change anything. If something does not work, why would we want to do more of it? The child may (or may not) catch up in the short term, but without additional supports they will likely fall behind in subsequent years, leading to a host of negative academic and social problems.
Pressure to meet academic standards and avoid retention may be increasing children’s stress levels regarding their academic achievement without increasing motivation or performance. Surveys of children’s ratings of twenty stressful life events in the 1980s showed that, by the time they were in 6th grade, children feared retention most after the loss of a parent and going blind. When this study was replicated in 2001, 6th grade students rated grade retention as the single most stressful life event, higher than the loss of a parent or going blind (Anderson, Jimerson, & Whipple, 2002).
Research indicates that retained students experience lower self-esteem and lower rates of school attendance, relative to promoted peers (Jimerson, 2001). Both of these factors are further predictive of dropping out of school. Indirectly, low self-esteem and poor school attendance influence adult outcomes. If we are going to reach a 90% graduation rate and close the achievement gap, we need to ensure that our practices are supportive of these goals.
The real question should not be to retain or not to retain but, rather, to identify specific intervention strategies to enhance the cognitive and social development of the child and promote his or her learning and success at school. Evidence supports that grade retention, when compared with social promotion, is an ineffective and possibly harmful intervention, so what to we do? “Promotion plus” (i.e., combining grade promotion and effective, evidence-based interventions) is most likely to benefit children with low achievement or behavior problems.
References and Resources
Adapted from:
National Association of School Psychologists — www.nasponline.org
Comments
Post a Comment