Success!

A year and a half ago, on the last day of my nephew's second year of pre-school, just days after his 5th birthday, I began an intensive effort to get him reading, writing and doing basic math. We started with Hooked on Phonics and soon moved on to easy readers. For numbers I used a dot-to-dot generator to get him counting to 100 (see the links on the left), and moved on to workbooks after that.

The goal was straight-forward: to get him to second grade in the 2009-2010 school year. This was made harder by the fact that the school absolutely refused to give him a year of academic kindergarten--while kids just a week or two older got an intensive program of phonics, whole words, writing, math, and fact-based learning. That is what I had to try to replicate at home. My job was to make sure that when he started the 2008-2009 school year, they could not deny that he was capable of doing 1st grade work, thus leading him to 2nd grade next year.

The enrollment contracts for next year arrived in the mail today.

We did it! He's going to 2nd grade next year.

I'm so proud of him for the work he did, however reluctantly, and for being able to learn from a teacher who didn't know what she was doing half the time. (It was hearing the word "sight words" while at the kids' school that got me on the right track. Sight words were what he needed the most, but I had forgotten all about them.)

I know that another family, who we warned about the school's tendency to flunk 6 year olds, was in shock after a parent-teacher conference a few weeks ago. They didn't take the advice we gave them last year to do work outside of school and to be proactive. They trusted the school to educate their kid. Big mistake. Their child will now turn 19 before heading off to college. Our kid will turn 18 just in time for high school graduation.

Why Boys Fail

For the first time...I get to link to another blog about the treatment of boys in schools. The whole blog is titled "Why Boys Fail". There are a lot of links and resources there discussing the problem.

Redshirting XX

Here we are at article #20, but our over-all article count has gone up by one, with the addition of a new 212 page paper--so total number is 39.

This one again is from the journal "Psychology in the Schools" (Vol 31, January 1994). It's available for $30 at this link.

"Kindergarten retention and Transition Classrooms: Their Relationship to Achievement"

Here's the abstract:

This study examined the relationship between extra-year programs and later school achievement. Ninety-five children were identified as being either retained in kindergarten, placed in a transition classroom, recommended for an extra-year program but went into first grade, or as being in a control group of children who went from kindergarten to first grade without reservation. Results indicated that children retained in kindergarten performed significantly lower on a standardized achievement test than did children in the other three groups. Despite an extra year of schooling, children placed in transition classrooms did not differ significantly in their performance from children who were recommended for an extra year but went onto first grade and children in the control group.

from the following page:

In review of the research literature on the effects of extra-year programs, there is overwhelming agreement that retention seldom aids student achievement and has been shown to have negative effects on students' social and personal adjustment

A popular test administered to kids to determine placement is the Gesell test. A rundown on problems with the Gesell can be found in this paper beginning on page 6. (This is paper number 39 I mentioned above, I'll give that paper its own blog entry at another time.) The short version is that it isn't a very reliable exam. It purports to gives a effective-age of kids, and suggests placement based on that determined age. The Gesell system strongly discourages "over placement", that is: putting young kids K or 1st before they are deemed ready by the Gesell test.

Getting back to paper XX:

May and Welch (1984) also examined the relationship between early school retention and children's later academic achievement. The purpose of their study was to determine whether early retention based on Gesell developmental placement affected later school performance on standardized tests. The children in the study were classified as "Traditional" (those who tested developmentally mature), "Overplaced" (those who tested developmentally immature but did not take an extra year because of parental request), and "Buy-a-Year" (those who did take an extra year). Thus, the Buy-a-Year children were one year older than the other children at the time of testing. Despite this extra year, these children did not do as well on the achievement measures as did the other two groups of children. May and Welch concluded that the Overplaced children were not suffering the learning difficulties predicted by the Gesell theory. Once again, research contradicted the philosophy that providing students with an extra year to mature improves academic performance.

"Buying a year" comes at a high price:

Although retention is not seen to be an aid to achievement, it does appear to be related to having a negative selfconcept. For example, a number of studies have shown that retained children see themselves as failing and experience stress and disappointment associated with the failure (Elkind, 1987; Niklason, 1984; Shepard & Smith, 1987). In retrospective interviews with parents, Shepard and Smith (1988) found that parents of retained children reported that their children were teased by peers, felt like failures, and were bored.

Remember that, in practice, holding a kid back is usually done for social reasons--the kid needs time to mature socially. So, an academically advanced or capable kid is damaged doubly: First by not being challenged academically and being bored by the tedium of repetition or classes with programs meant for younger kids. Second by losing self esteem, believing themselves to be failures, and opening the kids up to a school career of being teased.

The paper does some of its own research and divides kids up into 4 different groups:

2 years of kindergarten + 1st, (KK1)
kindergarten + transition class + 1st, (KT1)
kindergarten + 1st + 1st again, (K11)
or kindergarten + 1st.(K1)

They administered a bunch of different academic exams to see how the groups fared. What they found were scores like this:

Reading:   KK1 = 88.47,   KT1 = 99.10,   K11 = 99.27,    K1 = 104.69
Math:      KK1 = 89.21,   KT1 = 99.13,   K11 = 98.14,    K1 = 102.29
Language:  KK1 = 91.42,   KT1 = 96.80,   K11 = 104.47,   K1 = 105.89

You can see how detrimental KK1 is, and how preferable K1 is.

This is from the conclusion:

In fact, the results indicate that retention actually hurt their achievement when compared to the children who were recommended for retention but went onto first grade anyway.

...The results from this study do not support the assumption that holding a child back will facilitate later achievement. To the contrary, it appears more advantageous to move the child along and promote the child directly to first grade.

Redshirting: Article XIX

Here's another from the journal "Psychology in the Schools" (Vol 39(4), 2002, pp 441-457), which unfortunately isn't available free online. However, this article is available here, for a price of $30.

"Winning the Battle and Losing the War: Examining the Relation Between Grade Retention and Dropping Out of High School"

This paper, again, is a survey of other papers, trying to build support for its thesis by examining multiple other published research.

Abstract:

A systematic review of seventeen studies examining dropping out of high school prior to graduation demonstrates that grade retention is one of the most powerful predictors of dropout status. The discussion addresses the discrepancies among the perspectives of many educational professionals regarding the effectiveness of grade retention and deleterious long-term correlates. The transactional model of development is presented, which emphasizes developmental trajectories over time, in order to facilitate the interpretation of the association between grade retention and school withdrawal. Educational professionals, teachers, researchers, parents, and policymakers considering the efficacy of grade retention are encouraged to consider the implications of these findings.

So far, I've seen articles about high-school drop-outs, but this is the first one that mentions a lower level of post-secondary (ie. college) education as well:

From the first page (p 441)

In a review of retention research spanning the last 100 years, Jimerson (2001a) concluded that the results of research published during the past decade examining the efficacy of grade retention on academic achievement and socioemotional adjustment are consistent with the converging evidence and conclusions of research from the remainder of the century that fail to demonstrate that grade retention provides greater benefits to students with academic or adjustment difficulties than does promotion to the next grade. Moreover, results of recent longitudinal retention research suggests that children who are retained are more likely to drop out and less likely to attend post high school educational programs (Jimerson, 1999).

From page 443, in the "Results" section:

Barro and Kolstad (1987) provided a report on who drops out of high school that discusses many important contemporaneous and early predictors. The results indicate that early grade retention increased the risk of dropping out by 30% to 50%. In the examination of indicators of progression through school, the authors suggest, ". . . that grade retention has a more nearly independent status than performance as a determinant of failure to complete school"

Read that last sentence again. It is saying that a kid who does poorly academically, but who has never failed a grade or been retained, is less likely to drop out than a kid who does well in school but who has been retained. That to me is a stunning result.

Here's another study that was a comparison of Latino to other-white and black kids. In the end, they said the same thing, race mattered less than retention:

Fernandez, Paulsen, and Hirano-Nakanishi (1989) compared male and female high school dropouts among several Latino groups, in addition to non-Hispanic White and Black youth. [...] The Latinos as a group were more likely to be retained than non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks and had the highest dropout rate. Overall, it was found that retention emerged as a powerful predictor across all groups. Moreover, results of multivariate analyses demonstrated that subjects who were retained were more likely to drop out, independent of all other significant variables, which included math achievement, grades, and nuclear family responsibilities. Because the respondent's grades and test performance were statistically controlled, the authors suggest ". . . this pattern is strong evidence that students who have been grade delayed tend to drop out because of the age disjuncture between themselves and their peers and the consequent lack of fit between the respondent's peer group and classmates" (Fernandez et al., 1989; p. 37). Fernandez and colleagues (1989) conclude, "Regardless of race and ethnicity, scholastic performance and grade delay affect students' decisions to remain in school or drop out" (p. 47).

All together now: "Well, duh!"

And another: it's not about educational attainment, it's about being too old for the grade level:

Grissom and Shepard (1989) reevaluated three large data sets and consistently found that students who were retained, regardless of socioeconomic level, were placed at risk for dropout. Analyses that controlled for student background and gender revealed that low academic achievement alone could not account for dropping out. Utilizing causal modeling techniques, it was found that retention was the most significant predictor for high school dropout for these students.

This article has a table running 6 pages, summarizing 17 different studies of the topic. Some put numbers on the statistics. Like these:

* 78% of high school drop outs had been retained

* Kids retained in K-4 were 5 times more likely to drop out, and kids retained later than 4th grade were almost 11 times more likely.

* Repeating a grade during elementary reduced pursuit of post-secondary education by 85% (unfortunately, I can't find that article, it is listed as: Brooks-Gunn, J., Guo, G., & Furstenburg, F.F. (1993). Who drops out of and who continues beyond high school? A 20-year follow-up of Black urban youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 271–294.)

* 27% drop out rate for non-retained students [! - one in four for non-retained students? Yikes] and 69% for retained, 94% if retained twice.

* Retained kids are 4 times less likely to get a diploma or GED.

That's interesting: retention rates are increasing, more boys than girls are retained, leading to higher drop out rates among boys and few college-bound boys. Could something like retention during kindergarten explain some of the disparity in college attendance between men and women, with college campuses now leaning 60/40 to women?

It's amazing that decisions made 13 years earlier can lead to the current college gender imbalance.

Redshirting: Article XVIII

Seventeen articles down...

...twenty to go!

---

We found quite a few articles in the journal: Psychology in the Schools. Here's one from Vol 24, October 1987, pp 346-357: "Effects of Kindergarten Retention at the End of First Grade." It's available at this link for $30.


Here's the end of the abstract:

The two groups, which were equally young and unready at the start of kindergarten, were compared at the end of first grade on seven outcome measures; the retained children were then completing three years of school and the control children two. There were no differences between the retained and control children on teacher ratings of reading achievement, math achievement, social maturity, learner self-concept, or attention. The groups also did not differ in CTBS math scores; the only difference occurred on the CTBS reading test, where the retained group was one month ahead. Based on parent interview data, children who had spent an extra year before first grade were not much different from those deemed at risk but not retained, except that, on average, retained children had slightly more negative attitudes toward school. The study findings are consistent with other available research on transition programs that show no academic benefit for the extra year and, when examined, a negative impact on social-emotional outcomes.

And this is the start of the article:

Educators believe that grade retention is an effective solution for problems of academic failure and social immaturity (Byrnes & Yamamoto, 1984; Niklason, 1984). The latest Gallup poll shows that the public agrees (Gallup, 1986). In striking contrast to the beliefs about the benefits of retention, the research evidence is largely negative, In 1975, Jackson summarized available studies and concluded that, "there is no reliable body of evidence to indicate that grade retention is more beneficial than grade promotion for students with serious academic or adjustment difficulties"

The article goes on to provide the evidence. Here's a summary:

On all but one outcome measure, there were no differences between the retained and the control group. Children who were completing three years of school were the same as their matched controls [those who finish 1st grade after 1 year of K] on CTBS math scores and on teacher ratings of reading, math, social maturity, learner self-concept, and attention.

The only difference between groups occurred on the CTBS reading test, where the children with an extra year were ahead of controls by five points. This gain of five points translated into a difference of seven percentile points in relation to national norms, or one month ahead of where they would have been without the two-year program.

In parent interviews of retained and nonretained matched samples, there was no benefit for retained children in academic progress or in relationships with peers. Parents of children who repeated kindergarten reported that their children had slightly poorer attitudes toward school than equivalent groups of at-risk children.

Redshirting: Article XVII

This one has a nice scary title:

"Increased Drug Use Among Old-for-Grade Adolescents."

From the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine--a medical, not educational, journal. I haven't be able to find this one online at all, but it's from Volume 150(5), May 1996, pp 470-476.

This is from the Abstract:

Thirty-six percent of adolescents surveyed were old for grade. Adjusting for multiple potential confounders, old-for-grade high school students were more likely to report being regular smokers, chewing tobacco, drinking alcoholic beverages, driving in a car with someone who had been drinking, using alcohol or other drugs before last sexual intercourse, using cocaine in the past month, ever using crack, and using injected or other illicit drugs.

Conclusions: Old-for-grade status is a potentially important marker for drug-related behaviors in adolescents. The antecedents of adolescent risk-taking behavior may begin before the teen years, and prevention of school failure or interventions targeted toward old-for-grade children could affect their propensity to experiment with or use drugs during adolescence.

And this from the conclusions:

The high proportion of students who are old for grade (36%) is striking. This rate varies from 42% in the ninth grade to 30% in the 12th grade. We believe that this observation represents a true decline in adolescents who are old for grade in the higher grades, because there is a disproportionate number of dropouts and school absence among the older old-for-grade students. The magnitude of association between being old for grade and substance use probably would have increased if we had used a population sample that included youths who were absent or who had dropped out of school. Although further determination of the magnitude and potential causes for increased substance use among subgroups of old-for-grade adolescents is warranted, for many drug-related behaviors, old-for-grade status was the most significant factor, and these older students were at twice the risk.

Redshirting: Article XVI

Man, I'm to article 16 already? And less than half-way through the stack!

Here's one published by the US Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics: "Children Who Enter Kindergarten Late Or Repeat Kindergarten: Their Characteristics And Later School Performance." It is available free online here.

This says behavior problems get worse for retained kindergarteners:

Children who had been required to spend two years in kindergarten performed significantly worse than their first- and second-grade classmates on all five of the 1993 indicators, and on two of the four 1995 indicators (table 2). In 1993, 40 percent of the retained pupils were said to have problems concentrating; more than a third, to be not learning up to their capabilities; and 29 percent, to be acting up or disrupting the class. All of these proportions were 40 to 50 percent higher than those for children who had not been retained in kindergarten. While less than a fifth of the retained pupils were said to have trouble taking turns or sharing with others, this proportion was twice as high as that for non-retained pupils.

Redshirting: Article XV

Ready for another one?

"The impact of Early Grade Retention on the Academic Achievement and Self-Esteem of Seventh and Eighth Grade Students." From a paper presented at the Annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists (March 1994). It is available free online.

From the Discussion/conclusions:

The results of this study supported the hypothesis that retained students had significantly lower academic achievement and self-esteem scores than the promoted pupils. Thus, reinforcing the statement that retention as an intervention is ineffective and that educators who believe they are "helping" students by holding them back are really making a false assumption.

These results concurred with one of the first longitudinal studies on retention ever conducted. Kamii and Weikart (1963) found that retention does not benefit students in the long run. Thirty years later, there is still little proof that nonpromotion is advantageous to pupils. In fact, studies such as Smith and Shepard's (1987) contend that children view retention as punishment and experience emotions such as fear, anger and sadness when not promotive.

Possibly one of the most damaging aspects of retention is the drop out rate that occurs after the nonpromotion practice has taken place. Dawson and Rafoth (1991) reported that being held back once increases a pupil's likelihood of quitting school by 30%. Even more staggering is the fact that being held back twice makes dropping out of school a virtual certainty.

Redshirting: Article XIV

Here's one from the journal Development and Psychopathology (Vol 13, 2001, pp 297-315): "Effects of grade retention on academic performance and behavioral development". Always a little scary to see a word like psychopathology, isn't it? Again, this one is not available free online, but is available here for $25.

Here's the abstract:

This study examined the controversial practice of grade retention and children’s academic and behavioral adjustment using data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Kindergarten Children. We employed an autoregressive modeling technique to detect the impact of being held back during primary school on subsequent academic performance and behavioral development until age 12 years. The results indicate both a short- and long-term negative influence on academic performance for boys and girls. Children’s anxious, inattentive, and disruptive behaviors persisted and, in some cases, worsened after grade retention. These prospective associations were long lasting and more pronounced when grade retention occurred early in primary school. Boys were more vulnerable to the negative influence of grade retention on academic performance and classroom disruptiveness. Disruptive behavior in girls was comparatively less associated with long-term consequences than boys. Nevertheless, girls experienced both short and long-term academic performance problems in the aftermath of grade retention. Children’s prosocial behavior appeared unaffected by grade retention. These results are independent of what would have been expected by the natural course of academic and behavioral development.

So, if your hoping that this will make a kid better-behaved. Think again. According to this study, it actually makes the behavior worse. To me this is unsurprising. You take a kid out of a class with his age-peers, and put him or her into a class with kids a year younger. When you're talking about a 6-year old, or a 7-year old, that means being in a class with kids 17% and 14% younger, respectively. As any parent knows, there is a massive difference between a 6 year old and a 5 year old. The older kid plays differently, has a different vocabulary, is able to express themselves in far more complex ways. In short, a kid who is retained at an early age is stuck in a classroom with no true peer to play with or talk to.

This part cuts to the chase:

Positive effects of grade retention, if detected, are limited (Gottfredson et al., 1994) and tend to diminish over time (…). Two excellent examples make this point. First, Mantzicopoulosand Morrison (1992) observed an academic advantage for retained children during their 2nd year in kindergarten compared to their matched promoted peers. However, this advantage quickly faded by Grade 1, with retainees continuing to perform below the norm for their school district. Other studies have found similar effects (…). Second, Alexander, Entwisle, and Dauber (1994), monitored the school progress of 800 Baltimore children from first grade through middle school. More than 40% were held back during the study, with some twice. In some cases, the effects were positive. However, more profound examination of their data reveals less than positive outcomes. The largest group of retained children was one of first graders (n = 104). For these, the effects were quite discouraging. They did worse after retention than they did prior to retention. With retained second and third graders (…), the authors examined whether retention would curb academic free fall. Although these children benefited during the repeated year, they resumed their rank in percentile (in relation to their new same-grade peers) to where they were when they first started the repeated grade. Hence, it appears that grade retention is less than even a qualified success.

This is from the "Discussion", or conclusions of the article:

Grade retention negatively affected children's developmental outcomes regardless of the characteristics that they brought to their situation and the developmental trajectory predicted by such characteristics. These consequences were dramatic and often long lasting. In some cases, these varied according to sex. In others, grade retention affected children across the board.

....For both boys and girls, we found a sustained negative impact of grade retention on anxiety and inattentiveness. This impact was strongest for children who were retained in early primary school. The anxiety and inattentiveness problems were not only long lasting but became amplified over time. By the end of primary school, children who had been held back early on were worse off than those who had most recently been retained.

It is interesting to note that grade retention did not have an immediate effect on anxiety, but as children progressed in age and grade anxiety in those who were retained became significantly and increasingly problematic. Perhaps as children became older they became more conscious and identified by their peers as having been retained. Should this be case, such increases in academic status awareness could have induced evaluation anxiety, feelings of peer ridicule, and other social fit problems. For example, when it comes to choosing play partners, younger classmates show a tendency to choose nonretained classmates (i.e., their same-age peers) over retained classmates.

So, retention causes increased anxiety and isolation, without any academic benefit. Why are schools still insisting on this again?

Here's the final sentence:

Whether the practice continues because of inadequate alternatives or a commitment to school retention lore (...), this prospective study suggests that we should not underestimate the potential harm done by not using other means to intervene with academic failure.

Redshirting: Article XIII

This is from the medical journal Pediatrics (Vol 100, No 4, October 1997, pp 654-661): "Increased Behavior Problems Associated With Delayed School Entry and Delayed School Progress." Unfortunately, it is not available free online.

Here's part of the Abstract:

Controlling for multiple potential confounders with logistic regression, both old-for-grade status and grade retention are independently associated with increased rates of behavior problems. Separate logistic regression analyses for blacks and whites showed that these findings pertained only to white children.

Conclusions. Whereas grade retention is associated with increased rates of behavior problems in children and adolescents, simply being older than others in one's class, without having experienced grade retention, is also associated with increased rates of behavior problems, most noticeably among adolescents. These data suggest that there may be latent adverse behavioral outcomes that result from delaying children's school entry.

More:

Comparing rates of extreme BPI (Behavior Problems Index) scores with various combinations of old-for-grade and grade retention status reveals that both factors are associated with increased rates of reported behavior problems. Old-for-grade children who had been retained a grade or more had the highest rate of reported extreme BPI scores (19%); those who were old-for-grade without retention had a rate of 12%; of those who were not old-for-grade, children without a history of grade retention had the lowest rate of extreme BPI scores (7%)... Children who are old-for-grade without having been retained have a rate of elevated BPI scores that increases with age, with rates similar to the lowest-risk group (neither old-for-grade nor retained) when they are younger and approaching the rate for the highest-risk group (old-for-grade youth who had been retained) in the adolescent years.

From the Conclusions:

"At what age should children start first grade?" is a question that can have a lifelong impact on a child. This study suggests that being older than the majority of one's classmates can adversely affect children's behavior and that this effect is independent of having been retained a grade in school. These findings pertain only to white children, as neither old-for-grade status nor grade retention were independently associated with increased reported behavior problems in black children. Furthermore, the emergence of behavior problems among those who are old-for-grade without having experienced grade retention seems to be concentrated among adolescents.

Redshirting: Article XII

Retaining Children in Grade (free at link) (Foster, Jane E., Journal: "Childhood Education", Sept 22, 1993.)

Responding to public and political pressure to improve the quality of education, many school districts adopted retention policies and practices over the past decade. Children are "held back" from progressing with their age mates in order to provide them with a "year to grow" or a year to improve their academic performance. Unfortunately, such decisions are made without consulting the available research on retention. Retention is costly--not only in terms of tax dollars, but also the children's well-being. The children being held back pay with a year of their lives and possible continued academic, social and emotional problems.

Later...

Recent literature in the field, however, presents conclusive evidence against retaining children. A meta-analysis by Holmes (1989) demonstrated the inefficacy of the practice. Analyzing 54 negative and 9 positive studies, Holmes concluded that retention had consistent negative effects on students. The greatest difference found was related to academic achievement: retained students scored about one-third standard deviation less than similar children who were promoted.

More:

A large number of other meta-analyses and syntheses of retention studies confirm the notion that children recommended for retention, but promoted anyway, do at least as well or better than similar children who are retained in order to improve their academic skills (...). According to Smith and Shepard (1989), only small achievement gains were demonstrated by the retained groups after a retention year (less than 8 percentile points). Therefore, if the goal of retention is to enhance academic achievement, implementation fails to realize this goal.

Because a major reason given for retaining children in grade is to improve academic achievement (...), many studies focus on the academic outcomes of retention. In addition to the literature already mentioned, Niklason (1987) investigated 102 subjects (62 targeted for retention but promoted and 40 retained). Children were grouped according to a young group (grades K-1) or an older group (grades 2-6). Results on reading and arithmetic measures demonstrated that promoted students made more progress the following year than did those who had been retained.

But they're too young to feel bad about being held back, right?

Nope:

Many studies, however, have found retention to have negative effects on students' self-esteem (Bocks, 1977; Bossing & Brien, 1980; Goodlad, 1954; Moran, 1989; Niklason, 1984). Byrnes (1989) interviewed 71 retained children in grades 1, 3 and 6. When asked if they knew anyone who had been retained, 27 percent did not include themselves in their answers. Of the girls, 43 percent did not include themselves. Eighty-four percent said they would feel upset, bad or sad if they were retained. Only 6 percent gave positive responses. Bracey (1986) reports that children ranked failing a grade only slightly less stressful than going blind or losing a parent to death. Analysis of the children's responses indicates that retained children perceive the experience as a punishment and a stigma.

This fits in well with what we have learned about our kid's behavior. My sister was walking down the hallway with him, and when his former, promoted to K-1 classmates passed by, he hid behind a potted plant.

When it was time for the winter concert at school, he said we should get there at 7:30 instead of the correct 6:30 time. When his mom pointed out that the concert would be over by then, he said he knew that and that's why he wanted to get there at 7:30.

Now, tell me he isn't affected by being held back?!

Redshirting: Article XI

Here's the next one:

A prospective, longitudinal study of the correlates and consequences of early grade retention (purchase price at link = $31.50) (Shane Jimerson, et al. "Journal of School Psychology", Volume 35, Issue 1, Spring 1997, Pages 3-25.)

Abstract:

The characteristics of children retained in early elementary school and the effects of retention on achievement and adjustment were examined throughout the elementary years and again at age 16 years. When compared to a group of nonretained children who displayed similar levels of early achievement and were comparable on two measures of intelligence, the retained subjects were more likely to be males with significantly poorer adjustment. Parents of comparison children were higher on IQ and were more involved with the school than parents of retained children. Controlling for initial levels of achievement and adjustment, little evidence was found supporting retention as an intervention for improving educational outcomes. The retained group showed a temporary advantage in math achievement, but this disappeared as both groups faced new material. Moreover, the retained group exhibited significantly lower emotional health in the sixth grade. It is concluded that elementary grade retention was an ineffective intervention for both achievement and adjustment.

From page 4:

Thus, while retained children constitute a group segregated from their peers reportedly on the basis of poor achievement or "immaturity," in fact their retention may reflect a subjective decision-making process based on a variety of factors.

Page 5:

The possibility of children being retained due to their behavior problems is very important, in light of the concern generated by the outcome literature examining the effects of retention on pupil adjustment. If the practice of retention is found to produce subsequent difficulties in adjustment, then students who were retained initially due to adjustment difficulties may face an exacerbation of their problems as a result of the intervention.

From the "Discussion", page 20:

Retained students were characterized as being significantly less confident, less self-assured, and less engaging than their academically similar peers. Retained students were also reported by teachers to be more unpopular and less socially competent than their peers.

... Furthermore, research does not support retention as an intervention for children with behavior problems (Holmes, 1989; Smith & Shepard, 1987). Our results indicate that, in fact, their behavior problems worsened. Following retention, the retained students displayed exacerbated behavior problems by sixth grade, while their low-achieving, but promoted peers remained stable.

And page 21:

There were significant differences between the groups regarding social and personal adjustment in the sixth grade. After controlling for initial adjustment levels, the retained group exhibited significantly lower rankings on the emotional health/self-esteem ranking in comparison to both the low-achieving promoted students and control group. The retained group's low-achieving but promoted peers displayed more gains in emotional adjustment.

An "ouch" from page 22:

In the current study, the retained subjects continued to display comparable achievement to their low-achieving peers at age 16. Ultimately, it appears that the intervention of retaining these students did not benefit them academically and was ineffective, if not harmful, in terms of their adjustment.

From the final paragraph:

Based on our findings, the practice of retention (nonpromotion of students) appears to be ill-advised. This research suggests that retention may appear to facilitate early academic performance that disappears over time and may prove potentially harmful regarding adjustment.

Redshirting Articles

So far, every article but one that I've posted is available for free online in its entirety. So here is a summary of the links:

I. STILL Unacceptable Trends in Kindergarten Entry and Placement

II. Tracking and Retention (from an Iowa Department of Education)

III. Redshirting and Early Retention: Who Gets the "Gift of Time" and What Are Its Outcomes? (This one is a paid article - $25)

IV. Repeating Grades in School: Current Practice and Research Evidence

V. From the Early Childhood Network of the Iowa Department of Education

VI. Education Policy Analysis Archives: "Age and Achievement".

VII. School Readiness and Later Achievement

VIII. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)

IX. Does the Age that Children Start Kindergarten Matter? Evidence of Long-Term Educational and Social Outcomes

X. The Effects of Nonpromotion on Elementary and Junior High School Pupils: A Mega-Analysis

Redshirting: Article X

We have a lot more articles that I have never entered, and we even did a second literature search about a month ago. So, I'll pick up where I left off...

Article: The Effects of Nonpromotion on Elementary and Junior High School Pupils: A Mega-Analysis by C. Thomas Holmes & Kenneth M Matthews, University of Georgia, 1983. (The entire text is available free at the link.) (Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Montreal Canada, April 1983.)

This one pulls together 44 studies to combine the data into one whole.

Abstract:

Because studies have variously analyzed the effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school students--with some studies selecting control groups from within the same school and others without, some from age-peers and others from grade-peers--this meta-analysis mathematically integrates the research findings to coordinate their results. Using 44 studies that met the topic criteria, the authors measured the "effect sizes" in grand means.

When each effect size was treated equally, the grand mean effect size was -.37, indicating that promoted children scored 0.37 standard deviation units higher than retained children on the outcome measures. When effect sizes within each study were averaged, the grand mean was -.34. In studies in which promoted and nonpromoted students had been compared, the grand mean was -.38. It is noted that the high degree of consistency lends credibility to the validity of the findings. In addition to the grand means, the effect sizes were calculated on some dependent variable measures, including academic achievement, personal adjustment, attitude, behavior, and attendance.

The cumulative research shows that the potential for negative effects consistently outweighs positive outcomes. The analysis concludes with an extensive list of references.

Here's the article on academic achievement...which in my opinion is what school is supposed to be about!

The effect of nonpromotion on the academic achievement of pupils was measured in 31 of the 44 studies. From those studies, 367 effect sizes were calculated. When the mean of these 367 ESs was calculated, a value of -.44 was obtained indicating the promoted group, on the average, had achieved .44 standard deviation units higher than the retained group. Each of the sub-areas produced negative effect size values, indicating that non-promotion had a negative effect on pupils:

Language arts: -.40
Reading: -.48
Mathematics: -.33
Work-study skills: -.41
Social studies: -.35
Grade point average: -.58

I love studies that sum it up so nicely. Most of these studied have a line or two which completely echoes what we have been trying to get through to the kids' school. This one is particularly sweet:

Those who continue to retain pupils at grade level do so in spite of cumulative research evidence showing the potential for negative effects consistently outweighs positive outcomes. Since this cumulating research evidence consistently points to possibilities for negative effects to be produced by nonpromotion, the burden of proof should fall on the proponents of retention plans to show there is compelling logic indicating success of their plans, when so many other plans have failed.

Redshirting: Article IX

This article points out that starting school a year later means a person will lose one year of adulthood--with the economic impact of losing that year.

In other words, redshirting isn't free or painless to the family or to the adult the student will become.

From the journal: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

Does the Age that Children Start Kindergarten Matter? Evidence of Long-Term Educational and Social Outcomes (Lincove, Jane Arnold; Painter, Gary. "Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis", v28 n2 p153-179, Sum 2006.)

Parental preferences and school policies increasingly favor waiting an extra year for kindergarten – particularly for students with summer birthdates who would enter school as the youngest kindergarteners (Crosser 1998; Katz 2000; Stipek 2002). School entry is delayed in the hopes of improving academic or athletic opportunities for children (Katz 2000), but if Angrist & Krueger are correct, waiting an extra year may make students more likely to drop out of school thus reducing life time earnings.

[...] The results suggest that younger students are more likely to repeat a grade, which does have negative academic consequences. However, controlling for grade retention and interactions, starting school young does have modest advantages in terms of lifetime accumulation of human capital. The practice of delaying kindergarten does not appear to create any long-term advantages for students.

This seems to describe our kids school:

There is some evidence that redshirting is an unofficial policy for some school districts, where parents of incoming kindergarteners are pressured to wait an extra year to enroll children with summer birthdates (Shepard & Smith 1986). Other school districts have made the policy official by moving the cut-off date for kindergarten to exclude 5 year-olds with summer birthdates from kindergarten classes (Stipek 2002).

This from the article's conclusions:

Despite past evidence that older students have an academic advantage in elementary school, our results suggest that in the long-run, there is no reason to expect delayed kindergarten entry to increase educational attainment in the long-run. Combined with the work of Angrist and Krueger (1991), this suggests that the most important effect of age at school entry may be that older students lose a year of participation in the workforce rather than that younger students are disadvantaged in early elementary years.

There is no cost to the school for the added years, but the added year of private school tuition for my nephew really does count. And the extra year he will need to be supported by my sister before he becomes a working adult counts too.

Considering all these studies have shown no benefit from redshirting and many real harms to the academic and social development of the kids, and considering the added monetary costs to the families, and considering that many state departments of education as well as several associations of child development experts have come out against the practice, it is a wonder that it is still happening.

The more I read about this, the more upset I am on behalf of my nephew.

He's not being redshirted, he's being redshafted.

Redshirting: Article VIII

Here's another bit from the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). They also signed on to the first article listed below ("STILL Unacceptable Trends"). This is their own publication of their position statement.

Because learning does not occur in a rigid sequence of skill acquisition and because wide variability is normal, it is inappropriate to determine school entry on the basis of acquiring a limited set of skills and abilities. Schools may reasonably expect that children entering kindergarten will be active, curious, and eager to learn. They will know some things about themselves, and will be interested in making friends and sharing experiences with them. Although gaining in self-control, kindergarten children’s enthusiasm will sometimes overwhelm them, as, for example, they call out an answer before the teacher calls on them.

More:

It is often assumed that tests exist to reliably determine which children are “ready” to enter school. Because of the nature of child development and how children learn, it is extremely difficult to develop reliable and valid measures of young children’s abilities. Preschool children, by nature, are not good test-takers. When tests are used to make decisions that have significant impact on children’s lives, such as denial of entry or assignment to a special class, the tests must offer the highest assurance of reliability and validity. No existing readiness measure meets these criteria (Meisels, 1987). Therefore, the only legally and ethically defensible criterion for determining school entry is whether the child has reached the legal chronological age of school entry [Auntie's note: italics are original]. While arbitrary, this criterion is also fair.

Redshirting: Article VII

How about one from a major scientific publication? This from the journal "Developmental Psychology" (Greg J. Duncan, et al. 2007, Vol. 43, No. 6, 1428–1446). School Readiness and Later Achievement

Abstract:

Using 6 longitudinal data sets, the authors estimate links between three key elements of school readiness—school-entry academic, attention, and socioemotional skills—and later school reading and math achievement. In an effort to isolate the effects of these school-entry skills, the authors ensured that most of their regression models control for cognitive, attention, and socioemotional skills measured prior to school entry, as well as a host of family background measures. Across all 6 studies, the strongest predictors of later achievement are school-entry math, reading, and attention skills. A meta-analysis of the results shows that early math skills have the greatest predictive power, followed by reading and then attention skills. By contrast, measures of socioemotional behaviors, including internalizing and externalizing problems and social skills, were generally insignificant predictors of later academic performance, even among children with relatively high levels of problem behavior. Patterns of association were similar for boys and girls and for children from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds.

This is a good article for when the school is saying a student isn't emotionally mature enough yet. One student at the kids' school got held back a year because he's shy. Does the school really ever stop to think that taking the kid out of his normal age peer group and sticking him in a class with kids he has less in common with is going to help?

As expected, the regression results indicate that school-entry reading and math skills are almost always statistically significant predictors of later reading and math achievement, with standardized coefficients ranging from .05 to .53. Not surprisingly, school-entry reading skills predict subsequent reading achievement better than subsequent math achievement, just as early math skills are more predictive of later math than reading achievement.

In the case of attention skills and attention problems, coefficients are usually smaller than those for math skills, but they are statistically significant for more than half of the coefficients. In contrast, coefficients for socioemotional behaviors—externalizing and internalizing behavior problems and social skills—rarely pass the threshold of statistical significance.

Gee, what a surprise, the very things the kids' school seems to care least about in kindergarten: math and reading, are more strongly aligned with higher achievement, while the things the school cares most about: emotions, are not predicative.

Redshirting: Article VI

This one shows that, academically, kids who are over-age for their grade do worse than those in the appropriate class. Education Policy Analysis Archives: "Age and Achievement" (James B. Grissom; Volume 12 Number 49, September 18, 2004.) Here's the abstract:

There is continuing controversy about the optimal or appropriate age at which children should start school. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between age and achievement. It is an attempt to evaluate the hypothesis that older students fare better academically than their younger classmates. Findings indicate that on average for students in elementary school there is positive linear relationship between age and achievement for age normal peers. Even though there is positive linear relationship, the difference in average test scores between the oldest and youngest students is not great and by the time students reach 10th grade the positive linear relationship has disappeared. For overage students there is on average a negative linear relationship between age and achievement at all grade levels. That is, the negative relationship between age and achievement remains constant over time. These results argue against modifying entrance age policies, delaying school entry, implementing transitional kindergarten or first grade programs or retaining students to improve educational achievement. Policies and practices that make students older than their classmates inversely affect their educational achievement.

In other words, they found that kids who started kindergarten at the age-appropriate 5 years old, do better if they are on the older side of their cohort by a small amount--the oldest 5 year olds do best. But for kids who start at the age of 6, the older they are the worse they do--the oldest 6 year olds do the worst.

Here are two graphs which show this. The first is a reading test administered in grade 2. The blue highlighted areas (strange, they were yellow on my original, but Blogger changed the color) represent my nephew's June birthday. The one on the left is if he enters kindergarten at age 5, and the right at 6.



You can see that on average, his cohort of like-aged, old-for-grade kids score fully 10 points lower than the kids who start kindergarten on time--52 vs 42, a drop of nearly 20%.

Math is similar:



This one shows that boys like my nephew can expect to have 9 points lower scores than the kids who started a year earlier.

Keep in mind, that these are not tests administered in kindergarten and do not show the childrens' readiness for school. These are tests administered several years into school in second grade. According to redshirt theory, kids like my nephew should be doing better than if they started the previous year, not worse.

So much for second grade, what about later? Above, the studies showed that in second grade, kids who are in the normal grade for their age, but who are on the older side of their cohort do better, than the younger ones. The study showed that as time goes by, this age effect declines considerably, with all the kids basically evening out by the time they leave high school.

The opposite effect occurs for over-age kids. As they go through school, they fall further behind their peers.

For overage students there is on average a negative linear relationship between age and achievement for all grade levels. On average, overage students do less well than their classmates and the older they get the less well they perform. The negative relationship between age and achievement remains constant over time.

[...] Contrary to parental beliefs and educational policy, the results from this study argue against modifying entrance age policies, delaying school entry, implementing transitional kindergarten or first grade programs, or retaining students to improve educational achievement. Proponents of these practices argue that they will improve educational achievement. These results do not support that argument. In addition, although it may be difficult to argue that being overage causes lower achievement, policies and practices that make students older than their age normal peers seem to inversely affect their educational achievement. When students are one year older than their classmates, their average academic performance declines and continues to decline the older they get. Maybe making students different (i.e., older than their grade level peers) lowers their motivation to achieve. The research literature suggests that older students also are more likely to drop out of school.

Redshirting: Article V

This is from the Early Childhood Network of the Iowa Department of Education:

Retention, tracking, and extra year or transition programs are often used out of genuine concern for children who are perceived as needing more time to be "ready." Parents and educators mistakenly believe that placing children in ability groups or in a classroom with younger peers will improve their chances for success. These concerns are grounded on a definition of readiness that is not consistent with either the current knowledge about children's growth and development or with the goals and philosophy of the primary program.

Research findings on retention indicate that its effects are cause for great concern. Teachers, parents, and peers are likely to view a retained child less positively. Retained children perform more poorly in future academic work and are much more likely to drop out of school altogether (Holmes, 1989; Kreitzer, Madaus, & Haney, 1989; Mann, 1986). Further, research on kindergarten retention notes that it does not improve achievement, is not different from retention in later grades in its consequences, and has harmful effects on socio-emotional outcomes and on the development of self-concept (Shepard & Smith, 1989).

Tracking, often used to "equalize" opportunities for diverse groups, in fact, achieves the opposite. Students in low tracks are likely to experience negative effects personally and socially. Children in fixed ability groups are typically not treated equally by the teacher and miss out on the benefits of mixed ability groups. Tracking also tends to separate students along socio-economic lines (Slavin, 1987). Strategies such as cooperative learning and flexible grouping minimize the need for tracking. In the primary program, teachers adopt a model of teaching and learning that helps them cope with diverse groups of students.

 

Redshirting: Article IV

This one is from a consortium of university Ed departments, including Rutgers, State Univ of NJ, Michigan State, Stanford, and U Wisconsin.

Repeating Grades in School: Current Practice and Research Evidence

The decade of the 1980s saw a dramatic rise in the number of children asked to repeat kindergarten. In districts with special programs for "unready" kindergarteners, as many as 50 percent are held back. An extra year before first grade is offered in a variety of different forms: transition classrooms before first grade, developmental kindergarten before kindergarten, and straight repeating of kindergarten. According to its advocates, kindergarten retention is different from retention in later grades because it is intended to percent school failure before it occurs.

Controlled studies do not support the benefits claimed for extra-year programs, however, and negative side effects occur just as they do for retention in later grades. In a review of 16 controlled studies on the effects of extra-year programs, the predominant finding is one of no difference (Shepard 1989). For example, when researchers follow extra-year children to the end of first grade or as far as fifth grade and compare their performance to unready children whose parents refused the extra year, the extra-year children perform no better academically despite being a year older for their grade. The conclusion of no benefit holds true even for studies where children were selected on the basis of immaturity rather than for academic risk, and even where a special transition curriculum was offered rather than repeating kindergarten.

Although the majority of teachers believe that retention in kindergarten does not carry a social stigma "if handled properly," extra-year children are more likely to have lower self-concepts and poorer attitudes toward school compared to controls.