This study investigated the grade retention of students with learning disabilities. Data were collected on 689 students referred and identified as having learning disabilities during the 1987–88 school year in Indiana. Of these students, 58% had been retained before identification The results of this investigation suggest that retention is being used as a remediation before labeling a student. Implications of this practice and alternatives to grade retention as a method to address the academic needs of students are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChalfantJ. C.PyshM. V.MoultrieR. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 85–96.
2.
ConeT. E.WilsonL. R.BradleyC. M.ReeseJ. H. (1985). Characteristics of LD students in Iowa: An empirical investigation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 211–220.
3.
CummingsJ. A.HallG. C.McCarthyM. M.Snyder-GilbertC. (1987). An analysis of selected individual characteristics of third and sixth grade students based on level of performance on the Indiana Basic Competency Skills Test. Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Education.
4.
DoyleR. P. (1989). The resistance of conventional wisdom to research evidence: The case of retention in grade. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 215–220.
5.
EdgarE. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of them justifiable?Exceptional Children, 53, 555–561.
6.
EllweinM. C.GlassG. V. (1989). Ending social promotion in Waterford: Appearances and reality. In ShepardL. A.SmithM. L. (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 34–63). London: The Falmer Press.
7.
GallupA. M. (1986). The 18th Annual Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 43–59.
8.
GelzheiserL. M. (1987). Reducing the number of students identified as learning disabled: A question of practice, philosophy, or policy?Exceptional Children, 54, 145–150.
9.
GradenJ. L.ZinsJ. E.CurtisM. J. (1988). Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
10.
GrissomJ. B.ShepardL. A. (1989). Repeating and dropping out of school. In ShepardL. A.SmithM. L. (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 34–63). London: The Falmer Press.
11.
HahnA. (1987). Reaching out to America's dropouts: What to do?Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 256–263.
12.
HeshusiusL. (1989). The Newtonian mechanistic paradigm, special education, and contours of alternatives: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 403–415.
13.
HolmesC. T. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In ShepardL. A.SmithM. L. (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 16–33). London: The Falmer Press.
14.
HolmesC. T.MatthewsK. M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54, 225–236.
15.
JastakJ. F.WilkinsonG. S. (1984). The Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates, Inc.
16.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1986). Mainstreaming and cooperative learning strategies. Exceptional Children, 52, 553–561.
17.
KirkS. A.ElkinsJ. (1975). Characteristics of children enrolled in Child Service Demonstration Centers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 630–637.
18.
LarrabeeD. G. (1984). Setting the standard: Alternative policies for student promotion. Harvard Educational Review, 54, 67–87.
19.
McLeskeyJ.WaldronN. L. (1988). The impact of the LD Guidelines on the identification of students with learning disabilities in Indiana: Final report. Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Education, Division of Special Education.
20.
MedwayF. J. (1985). To promote or not to promote?Principal, 17, 22–25.
21.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
22.
NormanC. A.ZigmondN. (1980). Characteristics of children labeled and served as learning disabled in school systems affiliated with Child Service Demonstration Centers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 16–21.
23.
PoplinM. (1988) The reductionistic fallacy in learning disabilities: Replicating the past by reducing the present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 389–400.
24.
RoseJ. S.MedwayF. J.CantrellV. L.MarusS. H. (1983). A fresh look at the retention-promotion controversy. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 201–211.
25.
SandovalJ.HughesG. P. (1981). Success in nonpromoted first grade children. Davis: University of California. Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 212 371).
26.
SarasonS. (1982). The culture of school and the problem of change (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
27.
ShepardL. A.SmithM. L. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 115–127.
28.
ShepardL. A.SmithM. L. (Eds.). (1989). Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention. London: The Falmer Press.
29.
SlavinR. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
30.
SleeterC. E. (1988). Learning disabilities: The social construction of a special education category. Exceptional Children, 53, 46–54.
31.
SmithM. L. (1989). Teachers' beliefs about retention. In ShepardL. A.SmithM. L. (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 132–150). London: The Falmer Press.
32.
SmithM. L.ShepardL. A. (1987). What doesn't work: Explaining policies of retention in the early grades. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 129–134.
33.
WechslerD. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.
