There is a large body of academic research and analysis examining the effectiveness of grade repetition. Research published between 1950 and 2019 produced mixed results regarding the efficacy of early grade repetition in improving children’s social-emotional and performance needs. Concerns about the quality of many repeat grade studies have been raised in various reviews and reiterated in recent publications. These methodological concerns include: (a) the data collected 20-30 years ago may be out of date; (b) the characteristics of the comparison groups are rarely delineated; (c) comparing the scores of retained students before and after tests rather than using a comparison group can be problematic; (d) most studies do not consider socio-emotional outcomes; (e) remedial services during the repeated year are rarely documented, and (f) most studies do not examine the long-term outcomes associated with early grade repetition. These methodological considerations limit the unequivocal conclusions of a single study; however, the confluence of results clearly warrants further consideration. This study provides a meta-analysis of empirical studies published between 2010-2019 examining the efficacy 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. Descriptors used to search the reference databases included grade retention, grade repetition, no promotion, grade failure , Failed, Failed, Retained, And Other Related Synonyms. The results of these searches yielded more than 375 references between 2010-2019. In addition, other studies were identified by a review of the references in each obtained publication, resulting in about 520 references for consideration. The following selection criteria were used to narrow the literature to a core body 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 repetition (ie achievement, socio-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 above selection criteria, 19 articles were included in this review.
Summary and analysis procedures
The plan for the summary and analysis of the 19 articles was to provide the following information: (a) variables used to match the comparison group and retained students (i.e., IQ, academic performance, socio-emotional 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 sample population; (d) a review of analyzes comparing retained students to a matched group (ie, academic performance and socio-emotional and behavioral adjustment); and (e) the overall conclusion of the author (s) 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 of the studies included only students retained through kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade, however, some included students who retained 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 (SE). Calculating the effect size 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 between 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 meta-analyzes of grade repetition, the effect size was defined as the difference between the retained group mean, Xr, and the comparison group mean (promoted), Xp, divided by the group standard deviation. comparison, Sp (ES = (Xr – Xp) / Sp). Group means adjusted for past differences were used where available and calculated where possible. In studies where required group means and standard deviations were not included in the publication, the authors were contacted to provide the necessary data. For some analyzes, effect sizes were estimated working backward from the reported tests of significance. Many of the outcomes examined in the meta-analysis fell into two categories: (1) academic performance and (2) socio-emotional / behavioral adjustment. Analyzes of academic achievement included language arts, reading, math, and grade point average. Social-emotional / behavioral adjustment analyzes included social (eg, peer competence), emotional (eg, internalizing problems), and behavioral (eg, externalizing problems). Analyzes also included self-concept, general academic adjustment, and attendance. As some studies returned an effect size and others returned up to 25, additional 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 the effect sizes for each of the outcomes. This procedure gives each study equal weight to determine the overall result. Study weighted effect sizes were not found to differ significantly from reported effect sizes weighted by number of effects; therefore, they do not appear in the results.
Brief overview of findings
Most of the studies published during the last decade used a combination of IQ, academic performance, socio-emotional adjustment, socioeconomic status, and gender to match groups or control analyzes between the comparison group and the retained students. Of the 19 included studies, 15 examined outcomes up to grade 7; only five included results during the eighth grade and beyond. Overall, the results of the meta-analyzes yielded mean effect sizes indicating that the retained groups were 30 standard deviation units below the matched comparison groups. The average effect size for socio-emotional / behavioral adjustment (-.19) and academic performance (-.40) favored the matched comparison group over the retained group of students. The results indicate that the greatest differences between the groups were evident in the measures of attendance, reading, mathematics, language and emotional adjustment (-.65, -.56, -.49, -.40 and -.25, respectively). Regarding the authors’ conclusions on the efficacy of grade repetition as an intervention, of the 19 studies that compared retained students with a matched control group, the authors of 15 studies (79%) concluded that grade repetition course is ineffective as an intervention for academic achievement and socio-emotional adjustment.
conclusion
This meta-analysis includes studies published between 2005 and 2010 that provide 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 question of “to retain or not to retain”. The available evidence suggests that neither social advancement nor grade repetition will solve our nation’s educational problems or facilitate children’s academic success. Instead, attention should be directed toward empirically supported prevention and rehabilitation programs. It is suggested that education professionals, academics and politicians commit to implement and investigate 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 move beyond the rhetoric about retention and social promotion; we should seriously consider the results of empirical research examining the efficacy of grade repetition. Educational research provides valuable information on the effectiveness of various academic intervention and prevention programs; These studies deserve further consideration as we try to improve educational outcomes for at-risk children. Taking into account the research results of the last decade, grade repetition does not demonstrate its efficacy and would not be considered an empirically supported intervention.
