Yesterday I reviewed Nicholas Kristof’s enthusiastic endorsement of Mississippi’s reading program, which has raised test scores in fourth grade without reducing class size, spending more on education, or reducing child poverty. Kristof seems to believe that the so-called “science of reading,” allied with third grade retention and pre-school is the no-cost silver bullet to change American education. It should certainly appeal to those who don’t want to raise taxes or reduce economic inequality. The one study cited by Kristof in support of third grade retention was funded by Jeb Bush’s foundation; Florida enacted third grade retention and saw its fourth grade scores rise (but not scores in eighth grade).
Kristoff quoted a study that reached favorable conclusions about the efficacy of third-grade retention. He said that 9% of third-graders in Mississippi had been held back. I said that might be sufficient to explain the impressive fourth grade scores on NAEP: eliminate the lowest-scoring kids and scores go up.
Nancy Bailey, retired teacher, summarizes some of the research on third-grade retention: it’s bad.
She writes:
How can anyone who claims the Science of Reading is real think it’s OK to retain a third-grade child based on one test or for any reason?
If ever evidence or science existed involving education, understanding the rottenness of retention would be it. Yet some of the same people who believe using phonics (and more) is the one-size-fits-all scientific reading miracle seem fine with retention.
This is a crack in the glass for SoR science because it makes it look political. Retaining third graders because of a test may drive parents to leave public schools.
Children are devastated by retention. Once a child is retained, it changes their world. In Student Ratings of Stressful Experiences at Home and School, Anderson, Jimerson, and Whipple (2008) found that it rated high with various stressors.
Across grade levels, those events rated as most stressful by children were: losing a parent, academic retention, going blind, getting caught in theft, wetting in class, a poor report card, having an operation, parental fighting, and being sent to the principal.
When a child is kept back, they are more likely to be more physically developed in middle school than their peers. This certainly causes a child to rethink school and want to drop out.
In 2001, that’s right, 2001, Shane R. Jimerson’s Meta-analysis of Grade Retention Research: Implications for Practice in the 21st Century summarized studies of a previously published literature review about retention between 1990 and 1999, comparing this research with studies about retention done in the 1970s and 1980s.
Jimerson concludes:
In isolation, neither social promotion nor grade retention will solve our nation’s educational ills nor facilitate the academic success of children. Instead attention must be directed toward alternative remedial strategies. Researchers, educators, administrators, and legislators should commit to implement and investigate specific remedial intervention strategies designed to facilitate socioemotional adjustment and educational achievement of our nation’s youth.
Some SoR enthusiasts say if children had been given evidence-based instruction with phonics, no child would need to be retained. But even if this were true, why would they be on board for retention today when science is more confident of the problems with retention, especially third-grade retention based on one test, than the SoR?
It’s hard to believe Floridians ever permitted retention, since its researchers identified its harmfulness years ago. Many students have been retained in third grade throughout the years.
It’s perplexing to see legislators in other states endorsing it, like it’s a good thing, when the research about it is clear. It’s good that Michigan will no longer do it, but many other states continue to practice grade retention.
Furman professor Paul Thomas, who has written extensively about the SoR, describes retention here and presents a map showing the states currently subscribing to holding third graders back.
The same promoters of the SoR seem to love retention and are trying to connect it to Mississippi, where they appear to have higher test results in fourth grade.
The promoters of third-grade retention seem connected to former Governor Jeb Bush, who, for some strange reason, hitched his education star to third-grade retention based on a test. How sad that he didn’t promote lowering class sizes in K-3rd grade instead.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Remember Bloomberg did 3rd grade retention and fired members of the PEP who opposed? I also remember the 4th grade Gates movement in NYC in the 80s where kids were held back in the 4th. All failed of course. It is easy to raise reading scores by holding kids back – they are a year older and take the same grade test. My principal tried to hold back many kids in 1st grade on the theory she locked them into taking test as a year older for the rest of their elementary grades. And this scam worked for her.
My school district never jumped on any retention bandwagon. Instead, we used a variety of interventions including most of the ones mentioned in Nancy Bailey’s article. We lowered class size K-3, established 1-2, 3-4 multi-age classes, provided compensatory reading and resource room when appropriate as well as blended classes. Our evidence based modifications improved our test scores and earned our diverse school a Blue Ribbon from the DOE. We used in-class assessments each report card period to inform instruction. When we saw a student beginning to flounder, we provided additional reading support without classifying students. We rarely classified students before third grade since students mature at different rates unless the student was in dire need of assistance.
Retired teacher,
Too much good sense and too costly. Easier for states to just keep the lowest scoring third graders out of fourth grade testing. Costs nothing.
We tried to incorporate the best evidence based practices that would benefit our students. Of course, it costs money to do, but it will cost a lot more if a high number of students get classified later because we didn’t intervene in elementary school. It will cost society a lot more if students drop out or end up incarcerated.
Thoroughly disagree that it “costs nothing”. And extra year of schooling for some entails that amount of extra costs for at least a year. . .
. . . Not to mention the non-monetary costs of destroying a students sense of being and confidence.
I was sad to see Iowa listed as one of the states with mandatory retention. Its 300+ school districts used to have considerable autonomy. A Republican governor went around awarding individual schools with FINE (First in the Nation in Education) status.
The current Republican governor has adopted the hard-right stance of other states. If the charter industry and ALEC like something, then she loves it. What a tragedy! What an unforced self-inflicted wound!
Lies create a pleasant unreality.
. . . and they create an unpleasant reality. (which is how I first read your statement).
Third-grade retention. Another of the terrible ideas of Jeb Bush and Billy Gates.
It’s been around for a longer time than just Jeb and Billie. I have a friend who was retained in 3rd grade in 1963. Yes, it affected him quite negatively. . . as did the labelling and grouping of students-tracking back then.
Third-grade retention has one great virtue for the mayor or governor. It boosts fourth grade scores.
May I add a story to shed a bit more light on the subject. As I said in the recent post about the science of reading, I live with my now ten year old autistic grandson who is in fourth grade and I participate in his schooling every day. Autistic children often suffer from “developmental delay” including delay in acquisition of receptive and expressive language.
When Johnny entered first grade at Manoa elementary he was still at least three years delayed in acquisition of language and cognitive development. I discussed the retention question issue with the head of elementary special services along the way. She was against it because the studies show that it does not help with cognitive development including language and reading development. I left the question open.
After the pandemic, Pennsylvania allowed any parent to hold their child back and provided a short time period to notify our school if we chose to do so. I wrote a letter to the head of student services and said that such a decision should be made collectively with Johnny’s IEP team and only after full discussion of the issues. I reserved the right to make the decision at any point along the way, which was really John’s Dad’s right anyway pursuant to special ed law.
Johnny goes to class with “typically developing students” several times during each day: Morning Meeting, Social Studies, art, music, gym, lunch, recess, class trips, field days, etc. The typical kids love Johnny, understand Johnny, support him in every way and accept him just the way he is.
Because of that, Johnny has flourished in his social-emotional development, his cognitive development, and ability to talk and comprehend oral language. He has learned to handle his “social anxiety.”
He gets his reading, writing and math in his autistic support class, along with the support of his speech therapist and reading specialist who sees him four days a week for fifteen minutes a day. That is perfect for Johnny! He is finally learning to read at the beginning stage of reading and his increased use of words spontaneously is amazing.
He has three girlfriends in his typical classes who love him and support him whenever he needs it. And little Eli helps him, too, whenever he needs emotional support. It is “beautiful to see.” The girls write him cards and notes often to let him know how they feel about him.
Just two days ago, his girl friend Alex, passed by Johnny as we walked home from school. As she passed she said, “Hi Johnny!” And she held out her hand to him with her palm downward. He raised his hand palm up and put it in her hand. He looked her in the eye, knowingly, as she grasped his hand. She walked ahead, off to her house with her girlfriends.
Nothing more needed to be said.
It would be cruel to hold Johnny back a year. Especially since he is in fourth grade and will going to middle school after fifth grade next year. That will be a scary transition for Johnny.
He needs those friends for that transition. That is what is so precious about his schooling. I call it “the Manoa Magic.”
He will learn to talk, read and write — on his terms and his schedule. Not ours.
A beautiful story, Rich.
Diane, it is why I love public schools so much and believe in them so much. Miracles happen every day in “our schools.”
My understanding is that Mississippi does not automatically retain students just based on one test. There is an appeal process where students can still be promoted despite their test score.
Three cheers for Nancy Bailey, a most renowned educator!
Ms. Bailey, this discussion reminds me of the discussion we had pre Common Core years ago on Dr. Ravitch’s blog.
On my web site I have a page listing countless research on retention. I now have more information to post via your posting, Ms.Bailey. I won’t repeat the research I posted but you’ll find many articles on:
https://maryidefalco.com/30b_CC_Retention_Third_Grade_Mandatory_Reteniton.html
“Retention: most harmful tool in the arsenal of educators” Lorrie Shepard
There is an alternative to retaining and social promotion:
Give the At Risk student double instruction in reading from day one with a reading specialist working in tandem with the classroom teacher.The reading specialist should use a reading program anchored in Mary Clay’s philosophy and methodology- Constructivist approach.
Do not waste time drilling and memorizing phonetic elements in isolation.
Stop all this harmful Standardized testing and use that money to pay for reading specialists.
I agree wholeheartedly. Every kid who struggles should be entitled to a certified reading specialist.
There is no substitute for small group instruction with authentic reading materials at each student’s instructional levels. Word recognition and comprehension should be taught in context with interesting stories and and articles. Guided reading is a must.
In Pennsylvania, our poorer school district’s just won their “fair funding lawsuit” in our Commonwealth Court. In their testimony, the poorer school districts all lamented not being able to provide their students with reading specialists.
Justice Jubelirer, issued a 773 page decision ruling that Pennsylvania’s system of funding our public schools was unconstitutional because of such disparities. Our state Constitutional requires a “thorough and efficient” system of public education. “Efficient meant “effective.”
Struggling readers can not be taught reading effectively or efficiently in large heterogeneous classes. They need “safe spaces”, understanding and support.
PA won the lawsuit. Now see how long it takes for the state to pay.
I am a reading specialist trained extensively in Marie Clay’s Running Records assessment and teaching methods. RR was the most effective teaching tool I had . I took DAILY RR’s on my small group of young students, which gave me all the information I needed to teach to each child’s weakness using their strengths. Instruction was individualized using real books and stories. Fountas & Pernell’s Leveled Literacy Intervention program provided beautiful books that the children could successfully read ! Matching books to struggling readers (based on my running records’ analysis) was, in my teaching experience, an effective strategy to increase motivation and reading skills. The kids were successfully reading and that kept them wanting to read more books!!!
80% of my case load were discontinued after 6 months and were able to successfully handle their classroom curriculum. The remaining students were then recommended for special education testing. They needed a slower ,more
intensive approach in a special education program.