This study examined the long-term effects of retention and transition placement on school attendance, self-esteem, academic achievement, and special education/remedial service provision of students who were completing their seventh, eighth, and ninth grades. Because the majority (65%) of the sample had been retained/transitioned at the end of their kindergarten or first-grade year, student data were collected 5 to 10 years post-placement. Comparisons were made among students who had been retained, received transitional placement, or been advanced into the next grade in the usual manner. Both the retained and transitioned groups differed significantly from the matched sample group on average number of days absent during grades one to six and on special education/remedial service provision. Results suggested that neither retention nor transition placement resolved the academic deficiencies of these children.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Banerji, L. B. (1990). Longitudinal effects of a 2-year developmental kindergarten program on academic achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
2.
Byrnes, D., & Yamamoto, K. (1985). An inside look at academic retention in the elementary school. Education, 106, 208-214.
3.
Byrnes, D., & Yamamoto, K. (1986). Views on grade repetition. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 14-20.
4.
Cobb, C. T., & Dawson, M. M. (1989). The evolution of children's services: Approaching maturity. School Psychology Review, 18, 203-208.
5.
Dawson, M. M., & Raforth, M. A. (1991). Why student retention doesn't work. National Association of Elementary School Principals: Streamlined Seminar, 9, 3.
6.
Day, B., & Drake, K. M. (1986). Developmental and experimental programs: The key to quality education and care of young children. Educational Leadership, 44, 24-27.
7.
Ferguson, P. C. (1991). Longitudinal outcome differences among promoted and transitional at-risk kindergarten students. Psychology in the Schools, 28, 139-146.
8.
Galloway, J. E., & George, J. (1986). Junior kindergarten. Educational Leadership, 44, 68-69.
9.
Graden, J. L., Zins, J. E., & Curtis, M. J. (1988). Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students. Washington: National Association of School Psychologists.
10.
Gredler, G. R. (1984). Transition classes: A viable alternative for the at-risk child?Psychology in the Schools, 21, 463-470.
11.
Grissom, J. B., & Shepard, L. A. (1989). Repeating and dropping out of school. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 34-63). New York: Falmer Press.
12.
Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 16-33). New York: Falmer Press.
13.
Holmes, C. T., & Matthews, K. M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54, 225-236.
14.
House, E. R. (1991). The perniciousness of flunking students. Education Digest, 56, 41-43.
15.
Juel, C., & Leavell, J. A. (1988). Retention and non-retention of at-risk readers in first grade and their subsequent reading achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 571-580.
16.
Labaree, D. F. (1984). Setting the standard: Alternative policies for student promotion. Harvard Educational Review, 54, 67-87.
17.
Mantzicopoulos, P., Morrison, D. C., Hinshaw, S. P., & Carte, E. T. (1989). Nonpromotion in kindergarten: The role of cognitive, perceptual, visual-motor, behavioral, achievement, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 107-121.
18.
Mossburg, J. W. (1987). The effects of transition room placement on selected achievement variables and readiness for middle school. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 3048A.
19.
Natale, J. A. (1991). Making the grade: Promotion or retention? Ideas are changing-again. Executive Educator, 15-18.
20.
Niklason, L. B. (1984). Nonpromotion: A pseudoscientific solution. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 485-499.
21.
Niklason, L. B. (1987). Do certain groups of children profit from a grade retention?Psychology in the Schools, 24, 339-345.
22.
Ostrowski, P. M. (1987). Twice in One Grade = a false solution. A review of the pedagogical practice of grade retention in elementary schools: What do we know? Should the practice continue? (Report No. PS 017 600) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 300 119).
23.
Peterson, S. E., DeGracie, J. S., & Ayabe, C. R. (1987). A longitudinal study of the effects of retention/promotion on academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 107-118.
24.
Plummer, D. L., & Graziano, W. G. (1987). Impact of grade retention on the social development of elementary school children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 267-275.
25.
Reschly, D. J. (1988). Obstacles, starting points, and doldrums notwithstanding: Reform/revolution from outcomes criteria. School Psychology Review, 17, 498-501.
26.
Sandoval, J., & Fitgerald, P. (1985). A high school follow-up of children who were nonpromoted or attended a junior first grade. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 164-170.
27.
Shepard, L. A. (1989). A review of research on kindergarten retention. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 64-79). New York: Falmer Press.
28.
Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1989). Academic and emotional effects of kindergarten retention in one school district. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 79-107). New York: Falmer Press.
29.
Watson, K. D., Poteat, G. M., Wuensch, K., & McCammon, S. (1987). The relationship among grade retention, self-concept, and peer relations of sixth- and seventh-grade students. Educational and Psychological Research, 7, 251-260.
