Automatic grade promotion and student performance: Evidence from Brazil

Abstract

This paper examines the effect of automatic grade promotion on academic achievement in 1,993 public primary schools in Brazil. A difference-in-differences approach that exploits variation over time and across schools in the grade promotion regime allows the identification of the treatment effect of automatic promotion. I find a negative and significant effect of about 7% of a standard deviation on math test scores. I provide evidence in support of the interpretation of the estimates as disincentive effect of automatic promotion. The findings contribute to the understanding of retention policies by focussing on the ex-ante effect of repetition and are important for more complete costbenefit considerations of grade retention.

Examining the Effect of Automatic Promotion on Students’ Learning Achievements in Uganda’s Primary Education

“…These findings are consistent with Ndaruhutse (2008) who found that countries implementing automatic promotion (including Sub-Saharan Africa countries) produced higher learning results compared with those that practice repetition. However, the results are contrary to Koppensteiner (2014) who found a negative and significant effect on 4 th grade learning achievements of about 6% of a standard deviation attributed to automatic grade promotion in Brazil. One of the possible reasons for the difference in the effect at P3 and P6 is the difference in students' school/ classroom attendance patterns.…”

“…Contrary to the above scholars, Koppensteiner (2014) in his study on the relationship between automatic promotion and learning achievements in Brazil found a negative and significant effect of about 6% of a standard deviation. Findings by Taye (2003) on the impact of automatic promotion on learning outcomes in Ethiopia showed that 90.4% of the teachers interviewed said grade retention is better than automatic promotion to help underachieving students perform better in latter grades.…”

“…These studies documented only opinions and views of the respondents (teachers) in the three countries regarding the policy and its impact. Koppensteiner (2014) examined the effect of automatic grade promotion on students' performance in Brazil, using a difference in differences approach. However, his analysis focused on 4 th grade students and did not assess effect incidence along gender and school location dimensions.…”

“…Counter arguments against automatic promotion state that it negatively affects the overall quality of education since it eliminates competition, de-motivates students and teachers alike hence lowering teaching and learning outcomes (Koppensteiner, 2014;Taye, 2003;and Chohan & Qadir, 2011). By contrast, grade retention is viewed as leading to an improvement in cognitive learning outcomes (Brophy, 2006;Roderick et al, 2002;and King et al, 1999).…”

Public Spending and Quality of Education in Brazil

“…Fundamental e da Valorização do Magistério (Fundef), a federal fund which had as its aim the redistribution of state and municipal resources back to municipalities according to student enrolment (Koppensteiner, 2014). Our hypothesis is that municipalities that received higher government spending on primary education had higher Prova Brasil scores.…”