Five Myths About Keeping Students Back

From the Marshall Memo #451

In this article in Principal Leadership, Shane Jimerson (University of California/Santa Barbara) and Tyler Renshaw (Louisiana State University) debunk these myths about retaining students:

• Myth #1: Retention is a gift of time and helps students catch up. “Research reveals that students who are struggling academically do not typically catch up to comparable promoted peers,” say Jimerson and Renshaw. 

• Myth #2: Repeating the grade will help students achieve and adjust. In fact, research says retention is associated with negative outcomes in reading, math, science, and language arts and also in peer relationships, self-esteem, and behaviors that cause problems.

• Myth #3: Retention does no harm. Quite the contrary, studies have found that retention is correlated with emotional distress, low self-esteem, poor peer relationships, cigarette smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, early sexual activity, and violent behaviors. 

• Myth #4: Retention prevents further school failure. In fact, retained students are 5-10 times more likely to drop out of high school than non-retained students.

• Myth #5: Retention in early elementary school is okay; it’s later retention that causes problems. Actually, research has found no difference in negative consequences between students who are retained early on versus later.

True, some students benefit from retention, say the authors. However, “there is no proven method for predicting who will and who will not.”

Since retained students most often have these characteristics – low-SES, African-American or Hispanic, from homes with low educational attainment, reeling from multiple school moves, frequently absent from school, and displaying a variety of behavioral difficulties – retention is a significant factor in widening the achievement gap. That’s because students who already have multiple risk factors are more likely to be retained, making things worse.

So what do Jimerson and Renshaw suggest? Not social promotion, which can lead to a similar array of negative consequences when students move on without the skills needed to be successful. The middle ground, they say, is effective early intervention, specifically:

• Schoolwide interventions – First, there needs to be a positive school climate so all students feel welcome and valued. Second, the school needs good assessments to identify and begin to monitor struggling students at the very beginning of each school year. Third, a student support team needs to meet regularly and use assessment data to craft the most effective interventions. Fourth, a school-based mental health program should intervene with students who are not on track to be successful. Fifth, extended-day, extended-year, and summer programs should provide extra time for students who are behind. Sixth, tutoring and mentoring programs can use peer, cross-age, and adult support for struggling students. Finally, students need opportunities to explore postsecondary and career options and support to develop a plan for the future.

• Classroom interventions – First, teachers should use research-based, culturally sensitive instructional strategies. Second, effective behavior management strategies can increase pro-social behavior and behavior problems. Third, teachers should use systematic assessments and progress monitoring with modifications to instructional strategies in light of data. Fourth, teachers should bring in school psychologists, social workers, and administrators to provide additional support for high-risk students. Finally, it’s important to involve parents, providing materials, structured activities, and guidance so they are an effective part of the effort to prevent failure.

• Home and community interventions – “Family engagement in students’ school experiences is a strong protective factor against academic failure,” say Jimerson and Renshaw. 

“Retention and Social Promotion” by Shane Jimerson and Tyler Renshaw in Principal Leadership, September 2012 (Vol. 13, #1, p. 12-16), http://www.nassp.org