The Effects of Nonpromotion on Elementary and Junior High School Pupils: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

In this study data from all studies identified as meeting the selection criteria were mathematically integrated to determine the effect of grade-level retention on elementary and/or junior high school pupils. When each effect size calculated was treated equally, a grand mean effect size of -.37 was obtained indicating that, on the average, promoted children scored .37 standard deviation units higher than retained children on the various outcome measures. When the effect sizes within each study were first averaged so that each study could be given equal weight, a grand mean of -.34 was obtained. By using the effect sizes from only those studies in which the promoted and nonpromoted pupils had been matched, a grand mean of -.38 was calculated. The high degree of consistency in these measures lends credibility to the validity of these findings.In addition to the grand means, effects sizes were calculated on various dependent variable measures, including academic achievement (further subdivided into various areas), personal adjustment (which included selfconcept, social adjustment, and emotional adjustment), and attitude toward school, behavior, and attendance. In all cases, the outcomes for promoted pupils were more positive than for retained pupils.

The Short‐Term Effect of Grade Retention on Peer Relations and Academic Performance of At‐Risk First Graders

“…Results of studies of retention's effects on achievement have also been mixed, though predominantly negative (for reviews see Holmes & Matthews, 1984;Jimerson, 2001;Shepard & Smith, 1990.). When interpreting results of such studies, it is important to distinguish studies that used same-age comparisons from those that used same-grade comparisons.…”

“…Passage in 2002 of the No Child Left Behind Act, with its emphasis on mastery of minimum grade-level competencies as a condition for promotion, has renewed discussion of grade retention in the public arena. However, many researchers have examined the effects of grade retention during childhood and adolescence (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1994 BeebeFrankenberger, Bocian, MacMillan, & Gresham, 2004;Holmes & Matthews, 1984;Jimerson, 1999Jimerson, , 2001Jimerson, Carlson, Rotert, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1997;Mantzicopoulos, 1997;Mantzicopoulos & Morrison, 1992;McCoy & Reynolds, 1999;Meidel & Reynolds, 1999;Meisels & Liaw, 1993;Rumberger, 1995;Shepard & Smith, 1990).…”

“…Of the 148 analyses, 127 (86%) yielded no statistically significant difference between retained and comparison students, eight (5%) favored the retained sample, and 13 (9%) favored the comparison students. Thus, most studies failed to show any effect of retention on socioemotional adjustment.Results of studies of retention's effects on achievement have also been mixed, though predominantly negative (for reviews see Holmes & Matthews, 1984;Jimerson, 2001;Shepard & Smith, 1990.). When interpreting results of such studies, it is important to distinguish studies that used same-age comparisons from those that used same-grade comparisons.…”

Reading and School Completion: Critical Connections and Matthew Effects

“…Two national studies found retention rates of 21.3% (Resnick et al, 1997) and 20% (Rumberger, 1995). Numerous meta-analyses, reviews, and individual research papers report negative effects of grade retention (e.g., Holmes, 1989;Holmes & Matthews, 1984;Jimerson, 2001;Shepard & Smith, 1990;Silberglitt, Appleton, Burns, & Jimerson, 2006). The most recent of these meta-analyses found negative effects in terms of students' academic, socioemotional, and behavioral outcomes when retained students were compared to similar students promoted to the next grade (Jimerson, 2001).…”

The impacts of retention, expenditures, and class size on primary school completion in Sub-Saharan Africa: A cross-national analysis

“…Retention continues to be a common form of intervention for students who have been deemed unprepared for the next level of cognitive and social development, despite the known deleterious impacts on student dropout rate, attitudes towards school, and engagement (Schnurr, Kundert, & Nickerson, 2009). Schnurr et al (2009) cite multiple examples of research on retention and academic outcomes, with findings indicating small short-lived improvements in achievement (Jimerson, 2001;Gleason, Kwok, & Hughes, 2007) but no long-term improvement for retained students (Holmes & Matthews, 1984;Holmes, 1989;Jimerson, 2001). Further, the long-term impacts of retention on student performance have been shown to be nonsignificant (Jimerson, 1999;Silberglitt, Jimerson, Burns, & Appleton, 2006;Jimerson & Ferguson, 2007).…”