SO IF RETENTION IS SO HARMFUL, WHAT SHOULD WE DO? TEACH!

Heading Toward a Long-term, Systemic Solution

By Alice Thomas, M.Ed.

For over 40 years, study after study on grade retention has reached the same conclusion: Failing a student, particularly in the critical ninth grade year, is the single largest predictor of whether he or she drops out (Edley, 2002). Widespread retention further exacerbates the achievement gap. In Massachusetts, for example, across all grades, African-American and Hispanics are retained at over three times the rate of whites (Edley, 2002).

According to research (Anderson, Jimerson and Whipple, 2002; NASP, 2003; Jimerson, Anderson and Whipple, 2002; Setencich, 1994), some of the devastating effects of retention are:

• Most children do not "catch up" when held back.
• Although some retained students do better at first, these children often fall behind again in later grades.
• Retention is one of the most powerful predictors of high school dropout; holding a child back twice makes dropping out of school 90% certain.
• In 2001, 6th grade students ranked grade retention as the most stressful life event, followed by losing a parent and going blind.
• Students who are held back tend to get into trouble, dislike school, and feel badly about themselves more often than children who go on to the next grade.
• The weakened self-esteem that usually accompanies retention plays a role in how well the child may cope in the future.

Far too many students simply give up on school, largely because they feel like their school has already given up on them. Even our special education services are failure-based. "The current system uses an antiquated model that waits for a child to fail, instead of a model based on prevention and intervention. Too little emphasis is put on prevention, early and accurate identification of learning and behavior problems and aggressive intervention using research-based approaches" (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2002).

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY.

So What Can We Do?

Many advocate for early identification of student needs in order to apply appropriate instructional strategies (Anderson, Whipple and Jimerson, 2002; U. S. Department of Education, 2002; Lyon and Fletcher, 2001; Lyon, 2002). That is clearly a step in the right direction.

But not all teachers are effective at identifying student needs and applying instructional strategies that are the most appropriate for student needs. A study conducted by Sanders and Rivers (1996) examined the cumulative and residual effects of teachers on student achievement and found a wide chasm between the impact on student achievement by effective teachers and ineffective teachers. Equally performing second graders were separated by as many as 50 percentile points on standardized tests by the time they reached fifth grade solely as a result of being taught by teachers whose effectiveness varied greatly.

This study was based on Tennessee's "value-added" testing system that maintained year-to-year test records on every student in the public school system and matched students to their teachers. Teachers were divided into three groups – low, average, and high – based on their students' performance. The results showed the dramatic effect of good teaching on student achievement in two urban districts. There was a sharp difference in performance between students who had three teachers rated "low" and three teachers who were rated "high" during a three-year period. Although students in one of the urban systems performed at a higher level than the other, the pattern of "teacher-added value" was evident in both systems. The study also found that African American students were about twice as likely to be assigned ineffective teachers.