Psychology in the Schools Volume 27, October 1990

THE EFFECTS OF EARLY GRADE RETENTION ON THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF FOURTH-GRADE STUDENTS

EUGENE R. JOHNSON AND KENNETH W. MERRELL

Central Washington Universiiy LYNN STOVER

Sunnyside, Washington Public Schools

This study investigated the academic effects of early (kindergarten or first-grade) reten- tion on a group of fourth-grade students who had been retained at the K-1 level (n = 20). Two comparison groups were used: (a) fourth-grade students who had been recommended for retention at the K-1 level but who were not actually retained (n = 17), and (b) fourth-grade students who had made normal progress through the grades (n = 20). No significant differences in academic achievement level were found between the retained and recommended-for-retention-but-not-retained groups, but both of these groups of students were significantly lower on several academic achieve- ment measures than were their normal comparison peers. The results of this study indicate that grade retention as an academic intervention was ineffective. The con- tinued use of grade retention is discussed in relationship to the use of social promo- tion and other intervention alternatives.

Grade retention or nonpromotion is the practice of requiring a student to repeat a year of academic instruction at a particular level (Jackson, 1975). It is distinguished from subject or course retention in that the pupil repeats the entire grade level rather than the program for a single subject, such as reading. Although retention is used widely, the efficacy of this practice has been controversial among educators who hold sharply differing and often highly emotional views on the topic (Carstens, 1985; Holmes, 1983; Rose, Medway, Cantrell, & Marus, 1983).

Retention became an issue in public education once school systems began to organize their pupils into grade levels in order to allow teachers a more homogeneous student grouping in which instruction could be addressed. Children were grouped mainly by chronological age, although level of academic achievement also played a role in deter- mining grade level placement. Inadequate achievement resulted in retention. Such an organizational pattern was established in most urban schools in the United States by the end of the Civil War (Holmes & Matthews, 1984). Since that time, the practice of retention has been marked by cycles of popularity (Rose et al., 1983). During the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was common to retain children, and this practice was used as a treatment of choice for “slow learners.” From the 1930s until the early 1960s, the concept of “social promotion” was in vogue. During the 1960s, a downward trend in national standardized achievement test scores was noted, and critics began to point to social promotion as a primary reason why more children were leaving the public school system with a less demonstrable grasp of the academic fundamentals (Sandoval & Fitz- gerald, 1985). During the late 1970s and early 1980s, educators began to respond to the public demand for educational accountability with policies that established minimal competencies for graduation or promotion (Carstens, 1985; Rose et al., 1983). The goal was to ensure that students would possess adequate academic skills upon graduation

Requests for reprints should be sent to Eugene R. Johnson, Dept. of Psychology, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926.

333

334 Johnson, Merrell, and Stover

from high school, but a frequent side effect was an increase in the rate of retention (Holmes, 1983).

In a comprehensive review of the research to date on grade retention, Jackson (1985) assessed the available studies and determined that most fell into one of three categories: (a) studies comparing outcomes of retained students with those of promoted students, (b) studies comparing outcomes of groups of students prior to and following retention, and (c) studies comparing outcomes of groups of potential retainees who were randomly assigned to repeat or to be promoted. Jackson contended that the third type of study could provide a more reliable test of the relative benefits of promotion versus nonpromo- tion. He concluded that there was no reliable body of evidence to suggest that grade retention was any more beneficial than grade promotion for students experiencing academic difficulties. Jackson stated, “This conclusion should not be interpreted to mean promotion is better than retention, but that accumulated research evidence is so poor that valid inferences cannot be drawn concerning the relative benefits of these two op- tions” (p. 627).

Carstens (1985) reviewed the literature on retention and came to a similar conclu- sion as Jackson. After analyzing the design formats that had been used, she determined that four types could be identified, only one of which (the experimental format) “. . . allows one to conclude whether retention or social promotion has contributed to any between-group differences” (p. 50). Holmes and Matthews (1984) conducted a meta- analysis of 650 studies on grade retention and stated, “Those who continue to retain pupils at grade level do so despite cumulative research evidence showing that the poten- tial for negative effects consistently outweighs positive outcomes . . . the burden of proof legitimately falls on proponents of retention plans to show there is compelling logic in- dicating success of their plans . . .” (p. 232). Whereas Holmes and Matthews (1984) put the onus of proof on those who wish to continue retaining children, both Jackson (1975) and Carstens (1985) decided there was a lack of any empirical base supporting the use of either retention or social promotion. Other investigators have also concluded that there is an inadequate empirical base on which decisions to either retain or socially promote children can be justified (Gredler, 1984; Ilg, Ames, Haines, & Gillespie, 1978; Jennings, Lohraff, & Rizzo, 1988; Sandoval & Fitzgerald, 1985).

In light of the lack of adequately designed studies and the continuing enthusiam for the practice of retention among educators in face of significant costs and questionable results, it is important that further research be conducted. The central question in the retention debate is whether or not promotion is an effective treatment for children who display delayed academic progress. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of retention on the academic achievement of a particular group of children- those who were in kindergarten and first grade. The main research question in this investigation was whether fourth-grade children who were retained at the kindergarten or first-grade level demonstrated significantly greater academic achievement when compared to their grade peers who were nominated for retention but who did not repeat. This research project was designed to emulate the third type of design discussed by Jackson (1975), namely a comparison of a retained group of students with a group of potential retainees who were not actually retained.

METHOD Subjects

Subjects for this investigation consisted of 57 fourth-grade students (33 males, 24 females) from four public school districts in a western state. These subjects were divided

Early Retention and Academic Achievement 335

into three study groups based on several criteria. The first group included 20 students (14 males, 6 females) who had been retained at either the kindergarten or first-grade level (RET, or retained group). The second group included 17 students (8 males, 9 females) who had been recommended for retention at either the kindergarten and/or first-grade level, but for various reasons did not actually repeat a grade (NRET, or not- retained group). The third group included a normal comparison group (NORM group) of 20 students (1 1 males, 9 females) who had not been recommended for retention and had made normal progress through the grades.

The 57 subjects were selected from a pool of 604 fourth-grade students from the four school districts. To be included in this initial subject pool, subjects needed to meet all of the following criteria: (a) their primary language was English, (b) they did not receive special education services, (c) they had not been grade-retained later than the kindergarten or first-grade level, (d) they had not been placed in kindergarten to first- grade “transition” rooms, and (e) they had not transferred from other school districts.

Information on the early retention status of the subject pool was obtained through several methods, including reviews of students’ cumulative files, consultation with building-level administrators, specialists, and teachers, and examination of school place- ment rosters and other data. After reviewing the obtained data on the 604 students who met the criteria for inclusion in the initial subject pool, a total of 57 students were in- cluded in the final three-group subject pool for this study. The 17 NRET students were the only subjects from the entire initial 604 subject pool who met the NRET criteria. The number of subjects included in the RET and NORM groups (20 in each) were deter- mined based on the need to have comparison groups of approximately equal size to the NRET group, The RET group subjects were randomly selected from a pool of 88 meeting RET criteria by using a table of random numbers, and the NORM group was randomly selected from a pool of 499 meeting NORM criteria, also by using a table of random numbers.

Procedure Once the subjects had been selected from the initial pool and divided into the three

study groups, the cumulative academic file of each subject was examined to obtain standardized academic achievement data. Each of the 57 subjects had been administered the Metropolitan Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition (MAT), during the fall of their fourth- grade year, using 4.1 grade level norms, as had all other fourth-grade students attending public schools in the state of the four participating school districts. The MAT is a na- tionally popular group achievement test battery that is available in several forms and scoring configurations. Technical information on the standardization and psychometric properties of the MAT indicates excellent subtest reliabilities, adequate content validity, and sound standardization procedures.

Grade-level scores (e.g., 4.1, 3.5, 5.6, etc.) for each subject were recorded from the following MAT content/subtest areas: Total Reading, Total Math, Reading Compre- hension, Math Calculation, Spelling, Vocabulary, and Language Arts. These were the only seven MAT subtests for which consistent, uniform data were available across the four school districts, because of the method of state-wide testing and score reporting that was used.

RESULTS Analysis of the study data indicated that overall (combined measures) significant

differences existed between groups, and significant differences were found to exist between

336 Johnson, Merrell, and Stover

groups on all but one MAT subtest. Pairwise comparisons of MAT subtest scores by group indicated that no significant differences existed between the RET and NRET groups, but on most of the MAT subtest scores both the RET and NRET groups differed significantly when compared with the NORM group.

The data were initially analyzed using a multivariate analysis of variance procedure (MANOVA) with a 2 x 3 design (gender by group). The MANOVA results indicated that an overall statistically significant difference (Wilks's lambda F statistic = 3.08, p = .001) existed based on group membership. However, overall gender differences and gender-by-group interactional effects were not significant.

Following the MANOVA, comparisons were made between the three groups on the seven MAT subtests using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure. Statistically significant differences were found to exist between groups on six of the seven MAT subtests, with only the Math Calculation subtest differences by group failing to reach significance. Means and standard deviations of MAT grade equivalent scores are presented in Table 1, along with the results of the ANOVA procedure. As indicated in the table, differences between groups on the Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary score variables were significant at the p < .0001 level, group differences on the Total Reading and Language Arts score variables were significant at the p < .001 level, and group differences on the Total Math and Spelling score variables were significant at p < .05.

Table 1 Comparison of RET (n = 20), NRET (n = I7), and NORM (n = 20) Groups on Metropolitan Achievement Test Subtests: Means and Standard Deviations of Grade Equivalent Scores, with F Values from ANOVA Results at 2 and 54 Degrees of Freedom

RET NRET NORM M SD M SD M SD FValue

Total Reading Reading Comprehension

~~

2.9 1.5 2.8 0.8 4.6 1.7 9.80** 2.8 1.3 2.7 0.9 4.7 1.9 11.18***

3.4 0.9 5.4 1.7 15.66*** Vocabulary 3.1 1.4 Language Arts Spelling Total Math

Math Calculation

3.2 1.9 3.1 1 . 1 5.5 2.3 9.15** 2.9 1.9 3.5 1.7 4.4 2.0 4.20* 3.4 1.2 3.0 0.9 4.2 1 . 1 6.48' 3.5 1.5 3.0 1.2 3.8 0.8 2.41

*p < .05. **p < .001. ***, < .OOol.

Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted following the ANOVA to assess the extent of MAT score differences by specific group. Using the Scheffk contrast method at the .05 level, it was found that on the Total Reading, Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, and Language Arts subtests the scores of both the RET and NRET groups were significantly lower than those of the NORM group. On the Spelling subtest, the scores of the RET group were significantly lower than those of the NORM group. And, on the Total Math subtest, the scores of the NRET were significantly lower than those of the NORM group. The scores of the RET and NRET groups did not differ significantly on any MAT subtest.

Early Retention and Academic Achievement 3 37

DISCUSSION The most apparent conclusion to be drawn from this investigation is that the use

of early grade retention was not effective as an academic intervention for the RET group students. This conclusion is warranted by the finding that there were no significant differences in the achievement scores between the RET and NRET groups, but both of these groups were significantly lower than the NORM group on the majority of MAT achievement score variables.

The conclusion that both the RET and NRET students were overall significantly lower in academic achievement than the NORM group is reasonably justified, but there were some results that are contrary to this trend. The post-hoc pairwise contrasts be- tween groups on the MAT score variables indicated two exceptions to this general trend: (a) on the Spelling subtest, the RET group scores were significantly lower than the NORM group scores, but the NRET group scores on this variable did not differ significantly from those of either of the other two groups; and (b) on the Total Math subtest, the NRET students scores were significantly lower than those of the NORM group, but these scores for the RET group did not differ significantly from either of the other two groups. These two partial exceptions to the general trend in differences between groups appear to be anomalies that should be viewed in light of two main conclusions: (a) in terms of actual mean scores, the academic achievement scores of the norm group were always higher than the scores of either of the other two groups, even though these differences did not reach significance with both groups in all cases, and (b) both the RET and NRET groups were significantly lower in academic achievement on the majority of MAT scores.

It is important to assess the present findings in light of some limitations that this study included. One limitation was the modest sample size (57). If the subject popula- tion had been significantly larger, it would have been possible to generalize the results of this investigation to other groups with more confidence. Interestingly, this size limita- tion is due to an intriguing corollary finding of the study. While the initially screened subject pool included 604 students from four school districts, only 17 from this pool could be found for inclusion in the recommended-for-retention-but-not-retained (NRET) group. The RET and NORM groups (20 subjects in each) were randomly selected from subpools of the larger study subject pool based on the need to have similar sample sizes. The total of 17 in the NRET group (16% of the 105 students initially recommended for retention) is in sharp contrast to that of 88 in the subpool the RET students were selected from (84%). Although we could not obtain specific data as to why the 17 NRET students were utimately not retained, it appears that teacher or team recommendation alone is a powerful variable in determining whether a child will ultimately be grade- retained.

Another possible study limitation is that only academic achievement variables were assessed in this investigation. It would have been useful and interesting (though not possi- ble in the present study) to assess social-emotional status of the subjects as well. While previous research indicates that the self-esteem and social acceptance of grade-retained students suffer in comparison to normal students (Carstens, 1985), it would have been especially intriguing to assess and compare differences in social-emotional status between the RET and NRET groups. There is certainly little or no a priori evidence at this point to indicate that retained students would be superior on these variables when compared to students who were recommended for retention but ultimately not retained.

An additional inference that should be drawn from this investigation is that although the data did not support the use of grade retention as an effective intervention, the practice

338 Johnson, Merrell, and Stover

of social promotion (while seemingly preferable to grade retention) is not supported as effective either. This is a potentially important distinction that has implications for educational practice. The first implication is that education professionals need to be more adequately informed on what the data indicate concerning the practice of reten- tion, and if there are any best practices to be had, they should be clearly enumerated. The second implication is that education professionals should look at other interven- tions as alternatives to both retention and social promotion alone. Some obvious in- tervention strategies might include remedial education programs, summer school, strategic grouping of students within grades based on their academic needs, and special education intervention where appropriate, but the major point is that effective, creative alternatives to many of our current practices need to be utilized.

REFERENCES CARSTENS, A. A. (1985). Retention and social promotion for the exceptional child. School Psychology Review,

GREDLER, G. R. (1984). A look at some important factors in assessing readiness for school. Journalof Learning

HOLMES, T. C. (1983). The fourth r: Retention. Journalof Research andDevelopment in Education, 17, 1-6. HOLMES, T. C., MATTHEWS, K. M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high

ILG, F. L., AMES, L. B., HAINES, J., & GILLESPIE, C. (1978). School readiness: Behavior tests used at the

JACKSON, G. B. (1975). The research evidence on the effects of grade retention. Review of Educational

JENNINGS, G . A., LOHRAFF, J., & Rrzzo, J. (1988, February). Retention: A positive alternative. Teaching

ROSE, J. S . , MEDWAY, F. J., CANTRELL, V. L., & MARUS, S. H. (1983). A fresh look at the retention-promotion controversy. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 201-21 1.

SANDOVAL, J., & FITZGERALD, P. (1985). A high school follow-up of children who were nonpromoted or attended a junior first grade. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 164-170.

14, 48-63.

Disabilities, 2, 25-31.

school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54, 225-236.

Gesell Institute. New York: Harper & Row.

Research, 45, 61 3-635.

K-8, 66-67,