Student retention: Why is there a gap between the majority of research findings and school practice?

Flunking kindergarten after Head Start: An inquiry into the contribution of contextual and individual variables.

“…In the nonpromotion literature, prefirst-grade programs have been treated as variants of grade retention, because like grade retention, these programs add an extra year to the child's schooling (Gredler, 1992). Guided by Gesell's maturational perspective, prefirst (or developmental first) grades have been promoted as sound educational alternatives in hopes that they will provide unready children with the time to mature and develop the skills needed for formal schooling (May & Kundert, 1993; Tanner & Galis, 1997). As a result, the research on grade retention has, with few exceptions, typically focused on individual differences (e.g., demographics, cognitive ability, academic achievement, behavior problems, social adjustment) between promoted and nonpromoted children, generally ignoring school or family contexts.…”

Exploring teachers' experiences with grade retention

“…Another concern is some students are more likely to be held back in the practice of grade retention than others. Grade retention has produced a disproportionate number of students who are African -American, Hispanic, and low-income in comparison to their White peers (Tanner & Galis, 1997). There is also the concern that there exists a contradiction between research findings and pedagogical practices.…”

“…This study will explore elementary teachers' experiences with grade retention. Many teachers have utilized retention because they may be unfamiliar with present research finding, or they do not believe the findings of the research (Tanner & Galis, 1997;Witmer, Hoffman, & Nottis, 2004). On the other hand, teachers may believe that retaining a student is a good pedagogical practice (Witmer, Hoffman & Nottis, 2004).…”

“…Therefore, the resource may not have been reviewed. An example could be the many students retained at Center School eventually qualified for Special Education later in their school (Tanner & Galis, 1997;Witmer, Hoffman, & Nottis, 2004).…”