There is a large body of academic research and analysis examining the effectiveness of grade retention. Research published between 1950 and 2019 produced mixed results regarding the effectiveness of early grade retention in improving children’s social-emotional and achievement needs. Concerns regarding the quality of many grade repetition studies have been raised in several reviews and have been reiterated in recent publications. These methodological concerns include: (a) data collected 20-30 years ago may be out of date; (b) characteristics of comparison groups are rarely delineated; (c) comparing the pre- and post-test scores of repeating students rather than using a comparison group can be problematic; (d) most studies do not consider socioemotional outcomes; (e) remedial services during the repeated year are rarely documented, and (f) most studies do not examine long-term outcomes associated with early grade retention. These methodological considerations limit unequivocal conclusions from any single study; however, the confluence of results clearly warrants further consideration. This study provides a meta-analysis of empirical studies published between 2010 and 2019 examining the effectiveness of grade repetition.

Methodology used in the present study

This project began with a systematic search of the literature to identify grade repetition studies published between 2010 and 2019. The descriptors used to search the reference databases included grade repetition, grade repetition, no promotion, failing, failing , fail, retained and other related synonyms. . The results of these searches returned more than 375 references between 2010 and 2019. In addition, additional studies were identified through a review of the references in each publication obtained, resulting in about 520 references for consideration. The following selection criteria were used to narrow the literature down to a core set of research appropriate for this review. To be included in this review: (a) the research must have been presented in a professional publication (eg, journal article or book); (b) the results must have addressed the effectiveness of grade retention (ie, achievement, social-emotional, or other); (c) the study must have included an identifiable comparison group of promoted students; and (d) the research must have been published within the last decade. Based on the selection criteria above, 19 articles were included in this review.

Procedures for Summary and Analysis

The plan for the summary and analysis of the 19 articles was to provide the following information: (a) variables used to match comparison group and retained students (i.e., IQ, academic performance, socioemotional and behavioral adjustment, socioeconomic status, and gender). ); (b) specification of age/grade at which retention occurred and measurement of outcome variables; (c) designation of the location of the population sample; (d) a review of analyzes comparing retained students to a peer group (ie, academic achievement and behavioral and social-emotional adjustment); and (e) the authors’ overall conclusion regarding the effectiveness of grade repetition. Each study was examined to identify the variables used for matching and the grade level at which the results were studied. Most studies included only students retained through kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grades; however, some included retained students from kindergarten through eighth grade. The population samples for these studies are distributed throughout the country.

Statistical meta-analysis

Statistical meta-analysis is based on the concept of effect size (ES). Effect size calculation is a statistical procedure that allows researchers to systematically pool the results of studies to examine the benefit or harm of an educational intervention. The meta-analysis procedures result in a measure of the difference between the two groups expressed in quantitative units that are comparable across studies. Each effect size is standardized with respect to the standard deviation of the comparison group; therefore, it is possible to combine the results of different measures at different grade levels. A negative effect size suggests that an intervention (retention) had a negative effect relative to the comparison group of promoted students. Consistent with previous repeat-grade meta-analyses, effect size was defined as the difference between the repeat group mean, Xr, and the (promoted) comparison group mean, Xp, divided by the comparison group standard deviation , Sp (ES = (Xr – Xp)/Sp). Group means adjusted for past differences were used where available and calculated where possible. In studies where the required group means and standard deviations were not included in the publication, the authors were contacted to provide the required data. For some analyses, effect sizes were estimated by working backwards from the reported significance tests. Many of the outcomes examined in the meta-analysis fell into two categories: (1) academic performance and (2) social-emotional/behavioral adjustment. Academic performance analyzes included language, arts, reading, math, and grade point average. Socioemotional/behavioral adjustment analyzes included social (eg, peer competition), emotional (eg, internalizing problems), and behavioral (eg, externalizing problems). Analyzes also included self-concept, general academic adjustment, and attendance. As some studies reported one effect size and others as many as 25, further analyzes were performed to discern whether any individual study had produced substantial distortions in effect sizes. For each study, all individual effect sizes were summed and averaged. These means were used to recalculate effect sizes for each of the outcomes. This procedure gives each study equal weight in determining the overall result. The study-weighted effect sizes were not found to differ significantly from the reported effect sizes weighted by the number of effects; therefore, they do not appear in the results.

Brief summary of findings

Most of the studies published during the last decade used a combination of IQ, academic achievement, socioemotional adjustment, SES, and gender to match groups or control analyzes between comparison group and retained students. Of the 19 included studies, 15 examined outcomes through seventh grade; only five included outcomes through eighth grade and beyond. Overall, the results of the meta-analyses yielded mean effect sizes indicating that the retained groups were 0.30 standard deviation units below the matched comparison groups. The average effect size for social-emotional/behavioral adjustment (-0.19) and academic performance (-0.40) favored the matched comparison group over the group of retained students. The results indicate that the greatest differences between the groups were evident in measures of attendance, reading, mathematics, language, and emotional adjustment (-.65, -.56, -.49, -.40, and -.25, respectively). Regarding the authors’ conclusions regarding the efficacy of grade repetition as an intervention, of the 19 studies that compared repeating students with a matched control group, the authors of 15 studies (79%) concluded that grade repetition it is ineffective as an intervention for academic achievement and social-emotional adjustment.

conclusion

This meta-analysis includes studies published between 2005 and 2010 and provides additional information on the efficacy of grade repetition. In particular, these studies fail to show that grade repetition provides greater benefits to students with academic or adjustment difficulties than promotion to the next grade. Therefore, it seems practical to go beyond the “to retain or not to retain” question. Available evidence suggests that neither social promotion nor grade repetition will solve our nation’s educational ills or facilitate children’s academic success. Instead, attention should be directed toward empirically supported prevention and remediation programs. It is suggested that education professionals, academics, and politicians commit to implementing and researching specific prevention and corrective intervention strategies designed to facilitate educational achievement and socio-emotional adjustment of children at risk of school failure. It is time to go beyond the rhetoric about retention and social promotion; we should seriously consider the results of empirical research examining the effectiveness of grade repetition. Educational research provides valuable information on the effectiveness of various academic prevention and intervention programs; these studies deserve further consideration as we seek to improve educational outcomes for at-risk children. Based on research results from the last decade, grade repetition does not demonstrate efficacy and would not be considered an empirically supported intervention.