Regardless of claims to the contrary, holding kids back (flunking them) is a terrible idea. I recall attending a meeting of the National Association of School Psycholfists where the president of the organization said that the three worst fears of children were: 1) the death of their parents; 2) going blind; 3) flunking in school.
The third was deeply humiliating. It meant losing your friends and being branded a dummy. Yet there are states that continue to employ third grade retention, thinking they are helping children and knowing they are boosting fourth grade reading scores.
Nancy Bailey reviews the evidence here. Her inclusion: there are better, more humane strategies than grade retention.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Skipping a grade is also a bad idea, enrichingvwhile with age peers is far better,
LikeLike
I was taken from fifth grade and put into seventh. So, I’m in gym, in the showers, with boys much, much bigger than I am, and they are flipping wet towels at one another and howling because one of the boys has a hickey and I don’t know what this is.
For example.
LikeLike
I was a) scared and b) mortified/embarrassed.
Oh, and they had pubic hair, and I didn’t yet, or not much. Another embarrassment.
LikeLike
Same thing happened to me, Bob. 3rd grade to 5th grade, which was better than 5th to 7th for sure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
However, it is important to identify kids with exceptional gifts and give them the additional mentoring that they need. This is particularly true of mathematics and musical prodigies. Those kids are not wired like most people, the little Gausses and Mozarts.
LikeLike
I think poverty is an issue too. Retaining children that live in poverty isn’t going to make up for the damage poverty causes to children’s ability to read and learn.
Retaining children that live in poverty is punishing them for living in poverty.
LikeLike
exactly right, Lloyd
LikeLike
As a former teacher, principal, and central office administrator I can attest that retention at lower grades dramatically increased the dropout rate for those retained. Immediate intervention is the correct remedy for those in danger of failing. Retention is foolish.
LikeLike
“As a former teacher, principal, and central office administrator. . . .”
My condolences on the latter two.
LikeLike
I was a supporter of the teachers in my district both as principal and central office person
LikeLike
And of the students?
Did you implement the standards and testing malpractice regime?
LikeLike
And students. We tested as required by our state. We didn’t do canned test prep or pressure our school
LikeLike
So the answer to my query is yes. You implemented the standards and testing malpractice regime. In my book that means you were a part of the problem.
Question: In education ethical concerns (such as whether to implement the standards and testing malpractice regime) that involve harming the students, which is what that regime does, should one’s main focus be on doing what is right by the students or obeying the law?
LikeLike
Third grade retention policy is politicized radical, right wing ideology that work in tandem with the standardization of education and test and punish policy. We should not ignore 75 years of research from actual researchers while accepting falsehoods from Jeb Bush and his fellow profiteers. The so-called study cited by Nancy Bailey is another attempt from the right to appear legitimate and scientific. Third grade retention is a cheap, temporary attempt to cause a bump in test scores, and it is bad, harmful policy. In Florida, which has been retaining third graders for years, the score gains of retention disappear by 8th grade as it is not a solution to the problem.
When actual scholars examine the claims in these position papers masquerading as research, they often find the so-called studies are generally flawed and rife with inaccurate methodology, but the radical right could care less about facts or ethics. Their objective is to get their message out into the public sphere where it will be repeated by right wing pundits. As Nancy Bailey points out, there are far more effective ways to address the needs of students with lagging academics without harming young people’s sense of self, but these interventions cost money and require professional expertise that the right doesn’t want to pay for.
LikeLike
You are 100% correct
LikeLike
Retention is STUPID and DAMAGES.
LikeLike
It’s child abuse.
LikeLike
Child abuse. Exactly right.
LikeLike
Simple real solution is intensive intervention, which I did using Orton Gillingham and the beginnings of assistive technology to prevent gaps in comprehension. I can now say ten years into retirement as a test coordinator who was forced to give a final test to determine promotion, I did everything possible to move kids forward and worked with them the following year. Many who I helped graduated college and have interesting high level jobs today. The program I created was my own with the support of enlightened administrators at a time when punishment for those with learning challenges were in vogue in the NYCDOE.
LikeLike
Bless you for all this.
LikeLike
I’m interested . Name one.
LikeLike
First postulate of my educational philosophy: Listen to Nancey Bailey
LikeLike
Roy, you nailed it. Nancy Bailey is experienced and wise.
LikeLike
I would encourage people to read Bailey’s entire article. The research and arguments against retention aren’t particularly compelling to me because (1) it’s not clear how the researchers dealt with other variables and (2) there’s no discussion of research on outcomes of social promotion. But there are some good ideas in this toward the end, and I’m afraid that what people who don’t read the entire article will take away from this is that retention is bad, without also taking away the point that social promotion is also bad.
LikeLike
Retention dramatically increases dropout rates. That is undisputed. Interventions before retentions is the only correct answer.
LikeLike
You need good control groups to say that’s undisputed. Are you certain nobody disputes it?
LikeLike
I would refer you, FLERP, to the work of Shane R. Jimerson who has looked at many studies over the years. Also, Roderick & Nagaoka whose studies of retention in Chicago are compelling. I found it heartbreaking that some children were retained twice. I believe that the evidence against retention is quite strong.
LikeLike