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

Abstract

Using latent variable structural equation modeling, we tested a theoretical model positing that grade retention has a positive effect on children's teacher-and peer-rated academic competencies and on sociometric measures of peer acceptance. We also expected that the positive effect of grade retention on peer acceptance would be mediated by children's ability to meet academic challenges in their classrooms. Participants were 350 (52.6% male) ethnically diverse and academically at-risk first graders attending 1 of 3 school districts in Texas. An individually administered test of academic achievement, teacher-report and peer-report measures of academic competence, and peer-report measures of peer acceptance were collected on children in first grade and 1 year later, at which time 63 children were repeating first grade and 287 were in second grade. The hypothesized model provided a good fit to the data. Children's academic competencies, as perceived by peers and teachers, fully mediated the effect of retention on subsequent peer acceptance.When a child does not exhibit certain minimum academic competencies, teachers and parents face a dilemma. The child can be promoted to the next grade, with the hope that the child will somehow acquire the necessary competencies. This option is known as "social promotion." An alternative is to retain the child in grade to give the child another opportunity to master academic skills for that grade. This option is known as "grade retention." 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).Generally, research has suggested that grade retention has a negative effect on the developmental trajectories of children; however, there are several inconsistencies in the graderetention literature. For example, Jimerson (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of 20 studies published between 1990 and 1999 that reported the effects of grade retention on academic and socioemotional development in retained students and a comparison group of promoted students. These 20 studies yielded 175 analyses reporting academic outcomes and a mean effect size (Cohen's d, based on averaging outcomes for each study and weighing each study equally) of −.39. However, effects across studies were varied. Only nine analyses suggested that retained students performed better academically than promoted students. Conversely, 82 analyses indicated that promoted students performed better than retained students, and 8...

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).…”

Experiences with grade repetition : a narrative inquiry using a resiliency lens

“…Gleason et al (2007) found improvements in peer acceptance and teacher/peer perceived academic competence in the repeat year. These studies confirmed the immediate gains in peerrated liking for children retained relative to those who were promoted; however, this research concluded that the benefits dissipated within a few years post-retention.…”

“…This struggle-succeed-struggle scenario for academic and behavioral outcomes required more research to fully comprehend the long-term consequences for student academic motivation and achievement. Gleason et al (2007) longitudinal, quantitative research affirmed that this scenario may have long-lasting negative consequences, as well as provide an explanation as to why repeated students became disaffected with school. According to Gleason et al (2007) the positive effects of early grade repetition were most often short-term and difficult to compare.…”

“…Automatic promotion of students to the next grade level even when minimum competencies have not been met, hoping the child will somehow acquire those necessary competencies (Fager & Richen, 1999;Gleason, Kwok, & Hughes, 2007;Martin, 2011).…”

“…Wu et al (2008) found that while students who were repeated in grade one had slower growth rates in reading and mathematics in the short-term, they had faster growth rates in reading and mathematics in the long-term. The longitudinal work of Gleason et al (2007) discovered that when repeaters were compared to their grade-peers, younger students completing the grade for the first time, they were not as far behind their younger classmates as they had been behind their same-age classmates the previous year. Alexander et al (2003) concluded, that "Retention, so far as we can determine, does not impede Beginning School Study (BBS) children academically or assault their self-esteem in the early years, yet something about the experience apparently weakened repeaters' attachment to school" (p. ix).…”