Holding Students Back – An Inequitable and Ineffective Response to Unfinished Learning
Back in March 2020, widespread rapid school closures in response to the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic presented unique…
Back in March 2020, widespread rapid school closures in response to the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic presented unique challenges for educators, parents and students.
While these closures were necessary to stop the spread of the virus, district and state leaders had to make urgent decisions about remote learning to try minimizing disruptions to students’ education. Many students experienced disruptions due to food and housing insecurity, unreliable access to remote learning technology, reduced access to student supports and education services, and significant reductions to in-person classroom time. While the pandemic’s long-term impact on education remains to be seen, the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) found that students experienced lower growth rates in math and reading during the 2020-21 school year. These declines disproportionally affected Black, Latino, and Native students, as well as students in grades 3-5.
In response, some state and district leaders have considered requiring or giving families the option of having their children be held back a grade — also known as grade repeating or grade retention. Grade retention research dates to the early 1900s, and researchers from many fields have investigated its effectiveness. The research is clear that grade retention is not effective over time, and it is related to many negative academic, social, and emotional outcomes for students — especially students of color who have been retained. There is also clear evidence that other interventions — such as targeted intensive tutoring, expanded learning time, and supporting strong relationships between adults and students — have better outcomes for students.
1. Students who are held back experience negative academic, social, and emotional outcomes over time.
2. Grade retention disproportionally affects Black, Latino, and Native students and English learners.
3. Grade retention is only effective over the long term with significant additional supports.
4. There are more effective and less costly interventions to support students with unfinished learning.
Recent research shows that students of color are more likely to experience remediation even when they have already demonstrated academic success. That research also shows that students who experience accelerated learning struggled less and had better outcomes than students who experienced remediation.
In response to the pandemic, the federal government is providing an additional $123 billion to states and school districts through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP), which requires states and school districts to use at least 5% and 20% of the funding they receive, respectively, to implement evidence-based interventions to address unfinished learning and to address students’ academic, social, and emotional needs. See how much money your state is receiving here.
5. Many states have policies that require or allow students to be held back based on test scores, but most school leaders do not support holding students back to address unfinished learning because of COVID-19.
Retention policies are controversial and can change frequently. It is important for parents and advocates to be aware of what is going on in their state and district. Ask state, district, and school policymakers questions about mandatory grade retention to make informed decisions. Consider the following:
What retention policies currently exist in my state, district, and school?
What other supports are available to students who are not on grade level?
What data is collected and publicly reported about grade retention?
1. Fruehwirth, J. C., Navarro, S., & Takahashi, Y. (2016). How the timing of grade retention affects outcomes: Identification and estimation of time-varying effects. Journal of Labor Economics, 34(4), 979-1021.
2. Moser, S. E., West, S. G., & Hughes, J. N. (2012). Trajectories of math and reading achievement in low achieving children in elementary school: Effects of early and later retention in grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 580-602.
3. Wu, W., West, S. G., & Hughes, J. N. (2008b). Short-term effects of grade retention on the growth rate of Woodcock-Johnson III broad math and reading scores. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 85-105.
4. Crothers, L. M., Schreiber, J. B., Schmitt, A. J., Bell, G. R., Blasik, J., Comstock, L. A., Greisler, M. J., Keener, D., King, J. A., Lipinski, J. (2010). A preliminary study of bully and victim behavior in old-for-grade students: Another potential hidden cost of grade retention or delayed school entry. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26(4), 327-338.
5. Hughes, J. N., Kwok, O., & Im, M. H. (2013). Effect of retention in first grade on parents’ educational expectations and children’s academic outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 50(6), 1336-1359.
6. Eide, E. R., & Goldhaber, D. D. (2005). Grade retention: What are the costs and benefits? Journal of Education Finance, 31(2), 195-214.
7. Buckmaster, J. L. (2019). Holding back English learners: The impact of early elementary grade retention on language development [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
8. Tingle, L. R., Schoeneberger, J., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Does grade retention make a difference? The Clearing House, 85(5), 179-185.
9. Nagaoka, J., & Roderick, M. (2004, March). Ending social promotion in Chicago: The effects of retention. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
10. Hughes, J. N., West, S. G., Kim, H., & Bauer, S. S. (2018). Effect of early grade retention on school completion: A prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 974-991.
11. Ou, S., & Reynolds, A. J. (2010). Grade retention, postsecondary education, and public aid receipt. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(1), 118-139.
12. Wilson, V. L., & Hughes, J. N. (2006). Retention of Hispanic & Latino students in first grade: Child, parent, teacher, school, and peer predictors. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 31–49.