Benefits of Holding Students Back: The Middle …



Retention in Middle School: Why Are We Doing It?

Lee Ann Hvizdak

Marshall University

LS 703

Dr. Michael Galbraith

Retention in Middle School: Why Are We Doing It?

INTRODUCTION

Retention, or the “practice of requiring a student who has been in a given grade level for a full school year to remain at that level for a subsequent school year” (Anderson, Whipple, & Jimerson, 2002), is an acceptable practice among middle schools across the United States. Schools may see this as a temporary fix; however, there are numerous negative outcomes associated with retention. The reality, however, is that if a student is retained, he or she is 2-11% more likely to drop out of high school than those students who were promoted (Anderson, Whipple, & Jimerson, 2002) and less likely to become enrolled in some sort of post-secondary education. These retained youths also earn less money and attain a lower educational and employment status ratings at the age of 20 than their counterparts (Jimerson, 1999). So the question lies, why are we retaining students in middle school?

There is an abundant amount of research stating the negative effects of holding students back. For example, Hong & Raudenbush (2005) reported that retained students would have actually experienced higher growth had they been promoted to begin with. Jimerson (2001) also claims that retention may put the retained child in greater jeopardy for poorer school outcomes including the risk of dropping out of high school. As Black (2012) blatantly states it, retention fails “to improve low achievement in reading, math, and other subjects, fails to inspire students to buckle down and behave better, and fails to develop students’ social adjustment and self-concept.”

Limitations on the research do exist. The most glaring limitation would be the sample. For example, where would one find an administrator and a group of parents who would permit students to be arbitrarily allocated to a retention group or a non-retention group. In addition, there would have to be a group of students who had been promoted when in fact they were recommended to be retained. Tanner & Galis (1997) argue that matching students solely on academic variables is not enough. A second limitation also mentioned by Tanner & Galis (1997) is the difference same-age and same-grade comparisons. They state that “same age comparisons should favor promotion, whereas same-grade comparisons should favor retention.” In other words, research looking at both types of comparisons are more reliable. Finally, small sample size also serves as a limitation. The small sample size often serves as a limitation in many areas of research.

Even though there is significant research stating the negative effects of retention, ironically, many schools are still retaining children. It is important this information gets out to all administrators, counselors, teachers, and parents alike so best practices can be implemented as soon as possible. If not, this vicious cycle will continue for another hundred years.

This research study attempts to show those individuals in education the alternatives of retention. It will also evaluate teacher input when it comes to retention in addition to how many attributes these teachers could have implemented in their classroom to prevent retention.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this literature review is to further demonstrate the negative effects of retention. As stated by Wu, West, & Hughes (2008) and Alexander et al (2003), retained students may demonstrate a significant gain in improvement in the grade level standards that second year, but that is most likely because the students are already familiar or at least have been exposed to the curriculum. This improvement often vanishes in the two to three years following retention. Black (2012) calls this effect an “achievement bounce” meaning that any gains are apt to be minor and fleeting. Students tend to eventually level off or fall behind, possibly further, from their classmates once the bounce diminishes.

The research is out there proving that retention negatively affects students; however, socially promoting students is not the answer either. Social promotion is the “practice of passing students along from grade to grade with their peers even if the students have not satisfied academic requirements or met performance standards at key grades” (Social Promotion, 2004). VanAuken (1999) points out that socially promoting students results in middle and high school students who lack basic, prerequisite skills. Therefore a school must provide alternatives, or best practices, in lieu of retention. McDonald and Bean (1992) and Owings and Magliaro (1998) offer a variety of suggestions.

• Require summer school

• Offer intensive remediation before and after school

• Model and relate school work directly to student interests and needs

• Initiate academic incentive programs

• Delay testing until the fall rather than early spring assuming no more learning will occur

• Institute an optional learning resource program

• Insist on superior quality of work from students. Require revisions

• Stress counseling and study skills programs

• Employ suitable strategies such as cooperative learning, mastery learning, direct instruction, adaptive education, individualized instruction, peer tutoring, and curriculum-based assessment

• Improve and maintain home-school collaboration

• Encourage student responsibility for self-evaluation

• Allow tests to be finished individually or cooperatively. Amount of time should not be a factor

• Recommend smaller classes with higher levels of individualized instruction (VanAuken, 1999)

The NSAP (National Association of School Psychologist) (2011) also states that if a student is experiencing academic, emotional, or behavioral difficulties, having the student repeat a grade nor simply socially promote the student to the next grade is an efficient solution. They believe that the school psychologist should assume a leadership role and actively collaborate with teachers to execute models of service. For example, the psychologist should ensure that the following services be available at school:

• Multi-tiered problem-solving models to provide early and intensive evidence-based instruction and intervention to meet the needs of all students across academic, behavioral, and social–emotional domains

• Equitable opportunities to learn for students from diverse backgrounds

• Universal screening for academic, behavioral, and social–emotional difficulties

• Frequent progress monitoring and evaluation of interventions (NASP, 2011)

Finally, retention is a financial burden. For example, in Texas the estimated cost of retaining 4.8% of the total students enrolled during the 2006-2007 school year, which ended up being 202,099 students based on the average per student expenditure of $10,162, over two billion dollars (NASP, 2011). This money should be allotted for professional development for teachers so this vicious cycle does not continue. As Black (2012) so eloquently puts it, “most retained students are just recycled…simply giving students more of what did not work the first time around is an exercise in futility.”

All the literature clearly articulates that retention is not working. Teachers are holding children’s lives in their hands. These teachers need to be aware how their decisions today can effect a child tomorrow.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

This qualitative research study will focus on teachers and administrators’ attitudes and beliefs regarding retention. It will also force teachers and administrators to truly look to see what interventions, if any, were implemented before the decision of retention was reached. Finally, it will confirm who was directly involved in the decision of retaining a student.

PURPOSE STATEMENT

The purpose of this ethnographic study is to determine teachers and administrators’ attitudes and beliefs regarding retention, establish what interventions were used before retention, and examine those individuals directly involved with the decision to retain a student to discover why students are being retained. The teachers and administrators at Beverly Hills Middle School and Enslow Middle School in Huntington, WV will be the participants of the study. At this stage in the research, retention will be generally defined as “practice of requiring a student who has been in a given grade level for a full school year to remain at that level for a subsequent school year” (Anderson, Whipple, & Jimerson, 2002).

References

Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., & Dauber, S.L. (2003). On the success of failure: A reassessment of the effects of retention in the primary grades. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Anderson, G.E., Whipple, A.D., & Jimerson, S.R. (2002). Grade retention: Achievement and mental health outcomes. Retrieved from resource-library/articles/grade_retention.php

Black, S. (2012). Second time around. Retrieved from

Hong, G., & Raudenbush, S. (2005). Effects of kindergarten retention policy on children’s cognitive growth in reading and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 27(3), 205–224

Jimerson, S. R. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30, 420–437.

Jimerson, S.R. (1999). On the failure of failure: Examining the association between early grade retention and education and enjoyment outcomes during late adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 243-272.

McDonald, L.R. & Bean, L.C. (1992). Thinking of retaining a student? Try one or more of the twenty-five alternatives to retention. Education, 112, 567-570.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2011). Grade retention and social promotion (White Paper). Bethesda, MD: Author.

Owings, W. A. & Magliaro, S. (1998). Grade retention: A history of failure. Educational Leadership, 56, 86-88.

Social Promotion. (2004). Education Week. Retrieved from

Tanner, C. K. & Galis, S.A. (1997). Student retention: Why is there a gap between the majority of research findings and school practice? Psychology in the Schools, 34, 107-113.

VanAuken, T. (1999). Student grade retention. Retrieved from

Wu, W., West, S. G., & Hughes, J. N. (2008). Effect of retention in first grade on children's achievement trajectories over four years: A piecewise growth analysis using propensity score matching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 727– 740.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download