|
I am often asked these kinds of questions, especially given my work with
students who demonstrate learning and behavioral problems. I am not
surprised these questions arise since retention is a common educational
practice. However, the frequency of a practice should not be confused with
its effectiveness. Some interventions may appear sensible and logical.
Consequently, they become increasingly accepted and are implemented even in
the absence of data supporting their efficacy.
A major reason cited for the use of retention is that the child is immature
and lagging significantly behind his or her peers academically and/or
socially. A proposed remedy is for the child to repeat the same grade and be
exposed for a second year to the same curriculum, thereby providing the
child with an opportunity to mature and experience success (albeit with
classmates who are at least a year younger). As we shall see, this rationale
contains a major flaw, namely, the assumption that these children simply
need an extra year to "catch up" with their peer group. Many of these
youngsters require intensive interventions to address their learning and
social difficulties that will not be solved by repeating the same material
in the same way once or even twice or three times.
The use of retention has also gained momentum in response to well-founded
reservations about "social promotion," a policy for promoting students even
when they have failed academically. Last year, a school administrator said
at one of my workshops, "It makes no sense to promote students who have
failed to learn. It will only lead to more failure down the road. Why
promote someone who hasn't met requirements for promotion?"
I agreed with him to some extent, but added that if a child is failing in
school we must ask what we can do differently rather than requiring the
student to repeat a grade. I am not an advocate of social promotion, but I
also have serious questions about retention. I believe that we must identify
and apply solutions other than retention and social promotion when students
are having significant struggles in school. If we focus only on social
promotion or retention, we are likely to lose an increasing number of
students to school failure and/or dropout.
Two recent papers support my reservations about retention. Both were
authored by Shane Jimerson, Gabrielle Anderson, and Angela Whipple at the
University of California, Santa Barbara. One article, "Winning the Battle
and Losing the War: Examining the Relation between Grade Retention and
Dropping Out of High School," appeared in the journal Psychology in the
Schools (Volume 39, #4, 2002), while the other article, "Grade Retention:
Achievement and Mental Health Outcomes," was published by the National
Association of School Psychologists. The articles summarize research
undertaken during the past century about the impact of retention.
As these authors note, retention is frequently used in the United States. It
is estimated that 2.4 million students are retained every year and that the
retention rate has been on the rise for the past 25 years. There are also
some noteworthy individual differences. More boys are retained than girls
and more minority students are retained than Caucasian students. Jimerson,
Anderson, and Whipple write, "Retained students are more likely to display
aggressiveness, to have a history of suspension or expulsion, to act out in
the classroom, or display behaviors associated with Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder and Conduct Disorder. Children who are learning
disabled are also more likely to be retained."
They found that comparisons of both academic achievement (e.g., reading and
math) as well as social emotional adjustment (e.g., peer relationships,
behavior problems, and self-esteem) between retained and matched comparison
students demonstrated the "negative effects of retention across all
achievement and socio-emotional adjustment."
They continue, "Research fails to find significant differences between
groups of students retained early (kindergarten through third grade) or
later (fourth through eighth grades). What is most important is that, across
studies, retention at any grade level is associated with later high school
dropout, as well as other deleterious long-term effects." These long-term
effects included lower levels of academic achievement in the eleventh grade
and a greater vulnerability to stress and diminished self-esteem. In
addition, they cite studies that indicate that retention was perceived by
children to be one of the most stressful events that they could experience.
Emphasizing their reservations about retention, Jimerson, Anderson, and
Whipple contend that "retention was found to be one of the most powerful
predictors of high school dropout." They also question the commonly held
belief that retention in kindergarten or first grade is less adverse than
retention occurring in later grades. They quote a researcher who summarized
the literature in this area: "Retention in kindergarten or first grade does
not produce long-lasting academic gains, but rather increases the likelihood
that the student will become a high school dropout."
As with any research findings, there are always exceptions to the rule. I
have encountered some children and adults who were retained and believe that
it was helpful. However, most of the individuals with whom I have spoken
have only negative memories of being retained. One 10-year-old boy who was
retained after the first grade tearfully said, "My friends are all in fifth
grade but I'm in fourth. I hated being left back. It didn't help. Even the
fourth graders read better than me."
Many years ago parents consulted me about their seven-year-old son. He had
been diagnosed with both learning and attentional problems. Given his lack
of progress in the second grade, the school recommended that he be retained.
As the parents informed me of this recommendation, the mother began to cry.
She said, "My son is a lot like I was at his age. I was left back in the
third grade and it made me feel even more stupid. I will never forget the
beginning of the next school year when my friends moved up to fourth grade
but I stayed in third. I felt embarrassed and very stupid. I wish I could
say that repeating the grade helped me to learn better. Maybe for the first
few months but soon I was behind the rest of the class again. It wasn't
until I began to get the kind of help I needed when I was in high school
that I was able to keep up."
This mother, with the support of her husband, rejected the recommendation of
retention, believing instead that the solution did not reside in her son
needing an extra year to mature, but rather needing intensive help with his
reading difficulties. I was impressed with the willingness of the school to
work cooperatively with the parents in considering and providing services
without retaining him. Although this child required extensive tutorial
services throughout high school and college, he graduated from college. When
he was in high school, his mother poignantly said to me, "He was spared the
pain I experienced when I was retained."
I realize that these are just two examples of the negative impact of
retention. However, they are representative of many I have heard during my
career. If research indicates that retention is a questionable practice, why
is it that many well-meaning educators and other professionals advocate its
use? Jimerson, Anderson, and Whipple offer an interesting commentary.
"Typically, the test scores of students who are retained in the primary
grades may increase for a couple of years and then decline below those of
their equally low-achieving but socially promoted peers. The temporary
benefits of retention are deceptive, as teachers do not usually follow
student progress beyond a few years."
In essence, a comprehensive review of the research literature suggests
strongly that retention not only impacts negatively on the academic progress
of at-risk students but also on their self-image and their motivation.
Dropping out of school may be understood as a sign that they have lost hope,
believing that there are no actions they can take that will improve their
situation. A sense of "learned helplessness" dominates their thinking and
behavior.
However, promoting students who are academically and/or emotionally behind
their peers without introducing the appropriate support is also
counterproductive (although interestingly, the research suggests that
at-risk students who are promoted to the next grade fare better than
comparable students who are retained). If both retention and social
promotion are fraught with major drawbacks, then what stance should be taken
with at-risk students? I believe there are several guidelines based on
sensible (dare I say commonsense?) educational practices that can direct us.
1. When retention is being considered for a student, individuals making the
decision should be aware of the many studies that have been conducted that
not only fail to demonstrate the benefits of retention, but also, highlight
the adverse effects.
2. If a student is struggling academically and/or socially/emotionally, a
comprehensive evaluation should be conducted in an attempt to identify both
the student's strengths (or what I term "islands of competence") and
deficits. As my friend Dr. Mel Levine has so eloquently described in his
book "A Mind at a Time," the process of learning different academic content
as well as learning to interact effectively with others involves a variety
of skills. We must understand each student's unique learning profile before
we propose treatment strategies.
3. Once a student's learning and emotional strengths and vulnerabilities
have been identified, the next step is to design and implement an
appropriate intervention program with clearly stated goals and ways to
measure these goals. This process is enhanced when there is close
cooperation and trust between parents and school personnel and when students
are not on the sidelines as bystanders but rather are active participants in
their own education. We must help students to understand their strengths and
weaknesses and the rationale behind any intervention approach. This process
of "demystification" lessens the probability that at-risk students will
perceive themselves as dumb or stupid and increases their sense of
ownership, hopefulness, and motivation.
4. There should be ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of any
interventions based upon the stated goals and the input of the educators,
parents, and child. Strategies that are ineffective should be modified and
replaced. If it is apparent that a strategy is failing to help a student,
its use should not be continued month after month. Intervention programs
should be conceived as dynamic entities, open to change and improvement. We
must be cautious not to make the following assumption that I hear
all-too-often, "We have been using this approach for five months and the
child is still not responding. He/she is resistant." I believe in
perseverance, but if a technique we have attempted for five months is not
working, I often wonder who are the resistant ones in the scenario, the
children or the adults.
We must be realistic when we develop interventions, but we should not allow
budgetary or other constraints to limit our visions of the "ideal" program.
Striving for the "ideal" should not be construed as a naive effort in
futility but rather as a journey that will help us to turn possibility into
reality. We must also recognize that intervention programs may be drawn from
a wide spectrum of services. For example, some students may require only
several hours of tutoring each week to address their problems while other
students who cannot be managed in a regular classroom setting may require
placement in a self-contained classroom. Students should receive those
services that will best meet their educational and emotional needs for
success in school.
I have been asked, "Wouldn't retention be effective if students repeating a
grade were also provided with appropriate support so that they would truly
have the opportunity to catch up?" Possibly so. However, since research does
not support the efficacy of retention and even highlights its drawbacks, my
preference is to promote at-risk students but insure that they receive the
necessary support to help them to succeed in the next grade. If this were
done, advancement to the following grade would not fall prey to the stigma
of "social promotion" since the promotion was accompanied by comprehensive
strategies to remedy their learning and/or emotional difficulties.
I appreciate that the task of identifying and providing students with
interventions that will nurture their success is not always easy to achieve
and in terms of dollars can be costly. However, as we identify the obstacles
that prohibit us from delivering the most effective services we should keep
in mind the possible consequences if we neglect to provide these services,
namely, children who fail in school, who drop out emotionally and
physically, whose dreams and aspirations are eclipsed by a sense of
hopelessness, and whose futures become less promising and more bleak.
Given these consequences, I believe that the sensible choice is to devote
our time, energy, and resources to minimize those obstacles that hamper the
success of any child to learn and to succeed in school regardless of how
daunting these obstacles may appear. As we engage in this task, we will be
wise to avoid educational practices that research suggests may actually do
more harm than good.
Dr. Robert Brooks
More articles and information can be found at Dr. Robert Brooks' Web site
(http://www.drrobertbrooks.com).
|
|
||||||