In this age of accountability, many school systems have begun to take a tougher line on promotion policy, retaining students who do not make sufficient academic progress, particularly in reading and math. In many cases, the decision to retain a student is based on the student’s performance on high-stakes standardized tests. Research has consistently shown that retention does not improve student achievement and, in fact, can have negative long-term consequences for students, because retained students are much more likely to drop out than their peers. But despite these findings, many policymakers see retention as a good way to motivate students and offer those who don’t meet appropriate standards another chance to learn the material. This solution is also relatively simple, since it does not require the creation and financing of new programs or services. Students who do not meet the minimum cutoff score participate in a summer bridge program designed to help them achieve passing scores on the tests. Students who still do not meet the required cutoff score at the end of the summer bridge program are ultimately retained.

Previous studies analyzed the effectiveness of the summer bridge program and found a positive influence on student achievement. This study primarily looks at students in grades 3 and 6 who did not successfully complete the summer bridge program, either did not meet the minimum score or did not participate in the program. To determine the effectiveness of the retention strategy, the authors first looked at the extent to which the retained students improved their test scores. They then established three comparison analyses:

– Compare the academic growth of students in grades 3 and 6 who just missed the standard with those students who just passed the cutoff.
– Examine the academic growth of students during the first two years of the program.
– Use a statistical model to estimate the probability of retention among students participating in the summer bridge program and the effect of the program on learning growth.

General findings

Students have five opportunities to advance to the next grade and avoid repetition or, if they repeat, rejoin their peers:

– At the end of the academic year.
– At the end of the summer bridge program.
– During the middle of the next academic year.
– At the end of the next academic year.
– At the end of the summer bridge program carried out after the year withheld.

Despite these opportunities, which include two summer programs and a full year of instruction, the rate of retained students who ultimately passed the grade was low. Black students were disproportionately retained in all retention grades, with the greatest disparity in third grade. However, these retentions were largely due to previous poor performance. Boys were slightly more likely to be retained than girls, even when prior achievement was controlled for. For all retained students, the special education placement rate was three to six times that of similarly performing but non-retained peers.

Comparison Results

Three analyzes were conducted to try to determine the effect of retention on student performance. In the first comparison, the performance of high-scoring repeaters (students barely meeting the cut-off point) was compared with the performance of low-scoring promoted students. These comparison groups were created because the researchers felt that the students would be relatively close to each other in academic ability (the difference could be as little as one or two questions answered correctly on the test), and therefore the comparison would measure the retention effect, and not a different artifact of achievement. One year after retention, students retained in 3rd grade scored slightly higher than their promoted peers. This difference is statistically significant, suggesting some positive effect of the program. However, this effect did not last beyond the first year; achievement between the promoted and retained groups was not statistically different after two years. Students retained in sixth grade were significantly outperformed by their promoted peers one and two years after the retention year; in fact, the gap widened even more in the second year.

In the second comparison, the researchers compared the achievement of five subgroups:

– Students who were promoted after the summer bridge program.
– Students who were retained and fell a year behind their peers.
– Students who were retained but rejoined their peers at some point during the next year.
– Students who were placed in special education.
– Students who were retained for the second time.

There was little difference in performance between students who were promoted and those who were retained. Third graders who were promoted mid-year slightly outperformed their promoted peers; however, students who repeated twice or were placed in special education scored significantly lower than their promoted peers. At the sixth grade level, all groups except mid-year promotions scored significantly lower than their promoted peers.

In the third comparison, the researchers attempted to explain age and geographic differences in retention rates through statistical models. During the implementation of the retention program, some regions granted more exemptions from retention, and due to changes in policy, the retention of students with similar scores varied depending on the year in which the policy was changed. This resulted in students who scored at a specific level being retained in one year, but promoted in another. By estimating the probability of retention or promotion at the end of the summer bridge program and comparing the groups’ predicted performance (controlling for previous performance and demographic and school characteristics), the researchers were able to estimate the effectiveness of the retention program. They found no evidence that retention helped low-achieving students in grades 3 or 6. In fact, their results showed that retention may have hurt 6th graders. The researchers found little or no positive effect of retention on student achievement, and by sixth grade, retention likely negatively affected student achievement. For all low-performing students, promoted or retained, performance remained low.

Much of the comparative analysis within this study does not focus on the lowest performance level; rather, the researchers looked primarily at a narrow band of students with similar achievement levels but different rates of promotion. For example, very low-achieving students might have significantly improved their academic performance, but still failed to meet the cutoff score needed for improvement. The retention plan also included little guidance for teachers or additional resource allocations, meaning retained students generally had no support other than a year of repeated instruction and the summer bridge program. Retention programs that include other supports may have different effects on student achievement. This study only examined the short-term academic performance of repeating students; The long-term academic and social implications of the retention program were not estimated. Also, because this study was part of a larger evaluation, and because the population was limited to students who failed or just barely crossed the line, the study does not report on students who may have benefited from the threat of repetition or significantly improved. his performance through the summer bridge program.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *