The differences between retained and promoted children in educational services received

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether students retained in first grade, relative to similarly low achieving students who were promoted, differed in the number of remedial educational services received by students in the year pre- retention year and in the repeat year. Study participants were 769 relatively low achieving first grade students, of whom 165 were retained in first grade and 604 were promoted. Controlling for students’ conditional probability of being retained, based on propensity scores calculated prior to retention, retained students received the same number of services as promoted students during the pre-retention year. The following year, when retained students were in first grade and promoted students were in second grade, retained students received fewer services than promoted students. Furthermore, retained children had a larger decrease in services from year 1 to year 2. These data support the notion that grade retention is being employed as the primary intervention instead of a component of a more comprehensive remediation plan.

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

“…Holmes' (1989) data, Peterson and Hughes (2011) found that both low-performing promoted and repeated elementary school students were actually given fewer support services than received in the preceding year.…”

“…The consequences of this decision are many; therefore, the social-emotional needs must not be overlooked when considering the effectiveness of this practice (Peterson & Hughes, 2011). Penna and Tallerico (2005) claimed that in order to attend to the social-emotional needs of repeated students the curriculum must be different.…”

“…These bodies of work, along with the longitudinal work of Malone, West, Denton, and Park (2006), failed to demonstrate sustained outcomes for delayed entry or retained students in comparison to their non-delayed or non-retained counterparts. On balance, the effects of age within one's cohort concluded that age itself is not a particularly good predictor of learning or for at-risk behavior (Peterson & Hughes, 2011). Hong and Yu (2007) believed that if the goal is to facilitate children's cognitive and social maturation, repeating kindergarten established a less conducive setting for children to engage in age-relevant social relationships and made these children less ready for learning activities at the next grade level.…”

“…50% of all students made to repeat a year at least once before entering the ninth grade (Griffith, Lloyd, Lane, & Tankersley, 2010;Hauser, 2001;NASP Position Statement, 2011). The National Center for Education Statistics (2010) and Peterson and Hughes (2011) document that as of 2007, nearly 10% of students in grades kindergarten through eighth had been retained at one time in their educational career.…”

“…The majority of grade repetition research is approached from a quantitative view, with focus in relation to race (Balfanz, 2014;Fine & Davis, 2003), socioeconomic status , age-and grade-level comparisons (Jimerson, 2001;Peterson & Hughes, 2011), student dropout rates (Balfanz, Bridgeland, Moore, & Hornig Fox, 2010;Bowers, 2010;Jimerson, Ferguson, Whipple, Anderson, & Dalton, 2002;Parker, 2001;Rouse, 2007;Shepard & Smith, 1990), and political policy (Martin, 2009;Murray et al, 2010;Penfield, 2010;Shepard & Smith, 1990;Tanner & Combs, 1993;Van Breda, 2011). Recent data further supported that there is a potential disconnect between research and practice, and given that practitioners continue to repeat students, it might be advantageous for researchers to evaluate students' lives post-retention (Gottfried, 2012).…”