Grade Retention - Research Paper Example

Same-age comparisons show no benefit that accrues to retention. Preconceptions play a strong role. Much critical commentary on retention reflects a hostile predisposition partly grounded in equity or fairness concerns (Appleton et al 174). Minority and disadvantaged children tend to be overrepresented in lower-track placements and are more likely to be held back than Whites or children from higher socioeconomic status families. "That is, simply having a student repeat a grade is unlikely to address the multiple factors influencing the students' poor achievement or adjustment that resulted in the decision to retain the student" (Jimerson 420).

When children are separated along racial/ethnic and economic classes (even if the separation is based on educationally appropriate criteria) and then assigned disproportionately to tracks low in the school's hierarchy of prestige, the risk of harm is real. Whether a child should repeat a grade is the implicit question in most evaluations of retention. Technical problems in evaluating retention's effectiveness are found. The studies just reviewed no doubt are flawed in some ways, as shortfall from the ideal is a given in researching this difficult topic.

Beyond the same-grade-same-age issue for framing comparisons, there are further complications. For example, to make a fair comparison of a retained group with a nonretained group, the groups should be about equal in terms of ability test results and other relevant qualities before retention occurs (Jimerson 423). This is a large order because promoted children who test at the same level as retained children are not likely to be in other ways the same: if they were the same in all relevant respects, they presumably would also be retained.

For example, those who are low in ability but nevertheless promoted may do well because they try hard or because they are more emotionally mature. Equating the two groups only in terms of ability or achievement test scores does not provide a fair comparison, because the later success of promoted students could be due to other qualities, not to their being spared the burden of retention (Harrington-Lueker 45). The best outcome, of course, would be for more youth to realize success in school the first time through, rather than need to recover by way of uncertain "second chance" opportunities.

Unfortunately, in high-poverty school systems typically 30%-50% of children drop out. Critics state (Hoffman et al 173) that dropout rates are elevated among