The association between grade retention in first grade and passing the third grade state accountability tests, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) reading and math, was investigated in a sample of 769 students who were recruited into the study when they were in first grade. Of these 769 students, 165 were retained in first grade and 604 were promoted. Using propensity matching, we created five imputed datasets (average N = 321) in which promoted and retained students were matched on 67 comprehensive covariates. Using GEE models, we obtained the association between retention and passing the third grade TAKS reading and math tests. The positive association between retention and math scores was significant, whereas the association was marginally significant for reading scores.
Achieve. (2002). Three paths, one destination: Standards-based reform in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Texas. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http://www.achieve.org/node/265
2.
AlexanderK. A.EntwisleD. R.DauberS. L. (2003). On the success of failure: A reassessment of the effects of retention in the primary grades. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AllenC.ChenQ.WillsonV.HughesJ. N. (2009). Quality of design moderates effects of grade retention on achievement: A meta-analytic, multi-level analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 480–499.
4.
BaliV. A.AnagnostopoulosD.RobertsR. (2005). Toward a political explanation of grade retention. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 133–155.
5.
BarnardJ.RubinD. B. (1999). Small-sample degrees of freedom with multiple imputation. Biometrika, 86, 948–955.
6.
Beebe-FrankenbergerM.BocianK. M.MacMillanD. L.GreshamF. M. (2004). Sorting second-grade students: Differentiating those retained from those promoted. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 204–215.
7.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–231.
GhislettaP.SpiniD. (2004). An introduction to generalized estimating equations and an application to assess selectivity effects in a longitudinal study on very old individuals. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 421–437.
HoD.ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15, 199–236.
18.
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.
19.
HongG.RaudenbushS. W. (2005). Effects of kindergarten retention policy on children’s cognitive growth reading and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 205–224.
20.
HongG.YuB. (2008). Effects of kindergarten retention on children’s social-emotional development: An application of propensity score method to multivariate, multilevel data. Developmental Psychology, 44, 407–421.
21.
JimersonS. R. (2001a). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30, 420–437.
22.
JimersonS. R. (2001b). Winning the battle and losing the war: Examining the relation between grade retention and dropping out of high school. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 441–457.
23.
JimersonS.CarlsonE.RotertM.EgelandB.SroufeL. A. (1997). A prospective, longitudinal study of the correlates and consequences of early grade retention. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 3–25.
24.
KarweitN. L. (1999). Grade retention: Prevalence, timing, and effects (Report No. 33). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, CRESPAR.
25.
LorenceJ. (2006). Retention and academic achievement research revisited from a United States perspective. International Education Journal, 7, 731–777.
26.
McCoyA. R.ReynoldsA. J. (1999). Grade retention and school performance: An extended investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 273–298.
27.
OwingsW. A.MagliaroS. (1998). Grade retention: A history of failure. Educational Leadership, 56, 86–88.
28.
PowellH. A. (2008). Third grade retention and Florida’s pupil progression plan: Individual and school characteristics associated with long-term outcomes in reading performance. Dissertation Abstracts International: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(11–A), 4651. (University Microfilms No. 3292572)
RosenbaumP. A. (2002). Observational studies (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
31.
RosenbaumP. A.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.
32.
RubinD. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: John Wiley.
33.
SchaferJ. L. (2006). Marginal modeling of intensive longitudinal data by generalized estimating equations. In WallsT.A.SchaferJ.L. (Eds.), Models for intensive longitudinal data (pp. 38–62). New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
SchaferJ. L.KangJ.D.Y. (2008). Average causal effects from non-randomized studies: A practical guide and simulated case study. Psychological Methods, 13, 279–313.
35.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
36.
ShadishW. R.LuellenJ. K.ClarkM. H. (2006). Propensity scores and quasi-experiments: A testimony to the practical side of Lee Sechrest. In BootzinR.R.McKnightP.E. (Eds.), Strengthening research methodology: Psychological measurement and evaluation (pp. 143–157). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
37.
ShepardL. A.SmithM. L.MarionS. F. (1996). Failed evidence on grade retention [Review of the book, On the success of failure: A reassessment of the effects of retention in the primary grades]. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 251–261.
38.
SippleJ. W.KilleenK.MonkD. H. (2004). Adoption and adaptation: School district responses to state imposed learning and graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 143–168.
TomchinE. M.ImparaJ. C. (1992). Unraveling teachers’ beliefs about grade retention. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 199–123.
44.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Taking responsibility for ending social promotion. Retrieved January 23, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/PDFDocs/socialprom.pdf
WatanabeM. (2007). Displaced teacher and state priorities in a high-stakes accountability context. Educational Policy, 21(2), 311–368. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904805284114
48.
WillsonV. L.HughesJ. N. (2009). Who is retained in first grade? A psychosocial perspective. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 267–281.
WoodcockR. W.Muñoz-SandovalA. F. (1996). Batería Woodcock-Muñoz: Pruebas de Aprovechamiento—Revisada [Woodcock-Muñoz Battery: Achievement Tests—Revised]. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
51.
WuW.WestS. G.HughesJ. N. (2008a). 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.
52.
WuW.WestS. G.HughesJ. N. (2008b). Short-term effects of grade retention on the growth rate of Woodcock-Johnson III Broad Math and Reading scores. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 85–105.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
