# data[].attributes.body
Grade retention refers to the practice of forcing students to repeat a grade level because they did not achieve the necessary grade level criteria. Choosing to hold a child back is a very difficult and emotional choice. It might be taken into account when a kid has substantial difficulties improving in reading, writing, or math, falls short of the performance standards needed to advance to the next grade, and exhibits signs of being "immature" and "young" for her age. Test results are utilized in many schools nowadays to decide whether a student will advance to the next grade or repeat the current one. More and more children are at risk of being retained as a result of the present push for high academic standards since they aren't attaining the test scores needed for promotion. It's important to consider how the child will be affected.

# data[].attributes.body
This article looks at how retention might have some benefits. a large body of research showing that retained students perform worse academically, are more likely to drop out of high school, and have worse social-emotional outcomes than students who are promoted. Nonetheless, the choice to keep a student is frequently decided based on nuanced factors such as ability, maturity, and parental participation that researchers are unable to include in analyses. As a result, rather than being a result of being retained, the unsatisfactory outcomes of retained kids may really be a reflection of the reasons they were first held back. According to recent research, policies that support keeping and helping struggling readers can be an effective addition to more general initiatives to lower the percentage of pupils reading below grade level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether a child is a proficient reader by the third grade is an important indicator of their future academic success. Indeed, substantial evidence indicates that unless students establish basic reading skills by that time, the rest of their education will be an uphill struggle. This evidence has spurred efforts to ensure that all students receive high-quality reading instruction in and even before the early grades. It has also raised the uncomfortable question of how to respond when those efforts fail to occur or prove unsuccessful: Should students who have not acquired a basic level of reading proficiency by grade three be promoted along with their peers? Or should they be retained and provided with intensive interventions before moving on to the next grade?

Several states and school districts have recently enacted policies requiring that students who do not demonstrate basic reading proficiency at the end of third grade be retained and provided with remedial services. Similar policies are under debate in state legislatures around the nation. Although these policies aim to provide incentives for educators and parents to ensure that students meet performance expectations, they can also be expected to increase the incidence of retention in the early grades. Their enactment has therefore renewed a longstanding debate about retention's consequences for low-achieving students.

Critics point to a massive literature indicating that retained students achieve at lower levels, are more likely to drop out of high school, and have worse social-emotional outcomes than superficially similar students who are promoted. Yet the decision to retain a student is typically made based on subtle considerations involving ability, maturity, and parental involvement that researchers are unable to incorporate into their analyses. As a result, the disappointing outcomes of retained students may well reflect the reasons they were held back in the first place rather than the consequences of being retained.

Recent studies that isolate the causal impact of retaining low-achieving students cast further doubt on the conventional view that retention leads to negative outcomes. Much of this work has focused on Florida, which since 2003 has required that many third graders scoring at the lowest performance level on the state reading test be retained and provided with intensive remediation. Students retained under Florida's test-based promotion policy perform at higher levels than their promoted peers in both reading and math for several years after repeating third grade; they are also less likely to be retained in a subsequent grade. Although it is too soon to analyze the policy's effects on students' ultimate educational attainment and labor-market success, this new evidence suggests that policies encouraging the retention and remediation of struggling readers can be a useful complement to broader efforts to reduce the number of students reading below grade level.
Background on Grade Retention
Even in the absence of test-based promotion policies, the extent to which America's school systems have retained low-performing students in the same grade has varied considerably over time. Proponents of retention have long argued that low-performing students stand to benefit from an improved match of their ability to that of their peers and from the opportunity for additional instruction before confronting more challenging material. They also contend that the threat of being held back and the creation of grade cohorts that are more homogenous in ability could yield benefits even for higher-performing students. In the 1960s, however, concerns that retention hinders the social, emotional, and cognitive development of at-risk students led many educators to call for students to be advanced to the next grade with their peers regardless of their academic performance. Although systematic data are scarce, this push for so-called "social promotion" appears to have reduced the incidence of retention nationwide. Conversely, retention rates increased with the advent of standards-based reform in the 1980s and again in some school systems in the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

The most comprehensive information on the incidence of retention at present comes from just-released data from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR). In 2009-10, OCR for the first time included the number of students retained at each grade level as an element of the data it collects at regular intervals from a large share of the nation's school districts. Although not a complete census, the nearly 7,000 school districts that participated in the OCR data collection serve more than 85 percent of students in American public schools.

The OCR data indicate that 2.3 percent of all students in these districts were retained in the same grade at the close of the 2009-10 school year. However, much of this overall rate reflects retention in high school, when many students fail to accumulate enough credits to advance their academic standing but often repeat only specific courses as a result. Roughly one percent of students were retained in grades K-8, with the largest numbers repeating kindergarten or the first grade. The OCR data also confirm that retention rates are highest among traditionally disadvantaged minorities, who are most likely to suffer from low academic performance. The respective rates for black and Hispanic students were 4.2 percent and 2.8 percent, as compared with just 1.5 percent for whites.

Retaining a student in the same grade is a costly educational intervention, if students (as intended) spend an additional year in full-time public education as a result. Given average per pupil spending of roughly $10,700 (the most recent national estimate), the direct cost to society of retaining 2.3 percent of the 50 million students enrolled in American schools exceeds $12 billion annually. This estimate excludes the cost of any remedial services provided specifically to students repeating a grade, as well as any earnings foregone by retained students due to their delayed entry into the labor market.

It is perhaps surprising, then, that consensus is lacking as to whether retention yields any benefits at all for students that could offset these costs. Critics of retention contend that students are actually harmed by the trauma of being held back, the challenge of adjusting to a new peer group, and reduced expectations for their academic performance on the part of teachers and parents. They also argue that, once in high school, being over-age for their grade makes students more likely to drop out. As noted above, a large majority of existing studies confirm that students who have previously been retained are at elevated risk for low academic achievement and early dropout. Ernest House of the University of Colorado-Boulder concluded in 1989 that "It would be difficult to find another educational practice on which the evidence is so unequivocally negative."

To the extent that much of the evidence available on a topic suffers from a common flaw, however, a consistency of findings should not increase confidence in their validity. In the case of grade retention, the central challenge facing researchers is to distinguish the effect of being retained from the effects of those factors that triggered the retention decision in the first place. With few exceptions, the available studies of retention have attempted to meet this challenge by comparing the outcomes of retained students to those of equally low-performing, demographically similar students who were promoted. Yet the very fact that a different decision was ultimately taken on whether to retain the student in the same grade casts doubt on the usefulness of these comparisons. For example, educators may be more apt to hold back a student who performs poorly on a standardized test if they believe that the test is an accurate indicator of their true ability than if they believe the student simply had a bad day. Given the stigma associated with repeating a grade, more involved parents may also be less likely to acquiesce in a school's recommendation that their child be held back. Although speculative, these and many other possible sources of bias make studies relying on standard observational methods an unreliable guide for policy.

Fortunately, recently enacted policies tying retention decisions explicitly to performance on state tests provide an opportunity to generate more rigorous evidence on retention's consequences for low-performing students. Under these policies, students with test scores just below the standard for promotion face a far greater likelihood of being retained than students who met the standard exactly. And because there is considerable measurement error in individual student test scores, these differences in retention probabilities are nearly as good as would be achieved by randomly assigning low-performing students to be either retained or promoted. By comparing the outcomes of students with test scores in a narrow region around the promotion standard, researchers are therefore able to discern the causal impact of being retained for those students. First used in evaluations of a test-based promotion policy adopted by Chicago Public Schools in the mid-1990s, this quasi-experimental approach to the study of retention has recently been applied in a series of studies of test-based promotion in Florida. Because the Florida policy has served as a model for other states, evidence on its implementation and impact on retained students is of considerable interest.
Test-based Promotion in Florida
In 2002, the Florida legislature mandated that third grade students scoring below level two (of five performance levels) on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test in reading be retained and provided with intensive remediation unless they qualify for one of six "good cause exemptions." The policy's exclusive focus on third grade reading distinguishes it from many earlier programs with retention gates based on reading and math achievement at multiple grade levels. This focus reflects the accumulation of evidence that acquiring basic reading proficiency in the early grades is critical for later performance across disciplines. Many educators characterize third grade in particular as a key transition point from "learning to read" to "reading to learn." In reality, this transition is a gradual one and the decision to focus on third grade is in large part a reflection of the fact that it is the lowest grade included in the state testing program.

Florida schools may exempt low-performing students from the retention requirement if they fall into any of the following categories: students with disabilities whose Individualized Education Plan indicates that the state test is an inappropriate measure of their performance; students with disabilities who were previously retained in third grade; Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students with less than two years of instruction in English; students who were retained twice previously; students scoring above the 51st percentile nationally on another standardized reading test; and students demonstrating proficiency through a portfolio of work. In light of these exemptions, calling the Florida policy "test-based promotion" may be a misnomer. It would be more precise to say that, for students not in special education, a low test-score shifts the burden of proof such that educators need to make an affirmative case that the student should be promoted. Across the first six cohorts of third graders impacted by the policy, a slight majority (52.2 percent) of students failing to meet the promotion standard received an exemption.

Even so, the policy sharply increased the number of students held back in third grade. The number of Florida third graders retained jumped to 21,799 (13.5 percent) as the policy was implemented in 2003, up from 4,819 (2.8 percent) the previous year. Consistent with national patterns, the students retained under Florida's test-based promotion policy are disproportionately black and Hispanic. Black students represented just 22 percent of Florida third graders between 2003 and 2008 but fully 40 percent of those who were retained. Hispanics accounted for 24 percent of all third graders but 29 percent of those retained. The over-representation of blacks and Hispanics among retained third graders reflects the fact that students in these groups are more likely to have reading test scores below the promotion standard. In fact, controlling for reading performance, black and Hispanic students are two percentage points less likely than white students to be retained.

As noted above, the Florida policy also includes provisions intended to ensure that retained students acquire the reading skills needed to be promoted the following year. First, retained students must be given the opportunity to participate in their district's summer reading program. Schools must also develop an academic improvement plan for each retained student and assign them to a "high-performing teacher" in the retention year. Finally, retained students must receive intensive reading interventions, including ninety uninterrupted minutes daily of research-based reading instruction (a requirement that has since been extended to all students in grades K-5). The degree to which schools comply with these requirements varies considerably across the state. Nonetheless, it is important to note that existing evaluations of the Florida policy capture the combined effect of retention and these additional measures.

The latest research on the Florida policy examines its impact on students retained in 2003 for six subsequent years, by which time students retained only once as third graders had reached eighth grade; students retained in later years are followed for shorter periods of time. The best evidence of retention's short-term impact on student achievement comes from comparing the performance of retained students in grade four (two years after the retention decision) with that of their promoted peers in grade five, which is possible due to Florida's use of vertically aligned tests that place the achievement of students in different grades on a common scale. Comparing retained students to promoted students at the same grade level would conflate the effects of retention with any benefits of being a year older. Moreover, in the retention year itself, the test scores of third graders could be inflated due to their prior exposure to the same content and the additional stakes attached to the test.

After two years, students retained under Florida's test-based promotion policy outperform comparable students who were promoted by substantial amounts in both reading and math. The positive impact of retention on reading achievement is as large as 0.4 standard deviations, an amount which exceeds a typical year's worth of achievement growth for elementary school students. The impact of retention on math achievement is roughly half as big, perhaps because the remedial services provided to students before and during the retention year focus primarily on reading.

These short-term improvements in achievement, although dramatic, diminish over time and become statistically insignificant by the time retained students reach the seventh grade. The fade out of test score impacts is a common pattern in research on educational interventions, including interventions such as early childhood education and higher-quality kindergarten classrooms which have been shown to generate lasting impacts on such long-run outcomes as college enrollment and earnings. Whether students retained in Florida will also experience long-run benefits remains uncertain. However, it is worth noting that the retained students continue to perform markedly better than their promoted peers when tested at the same grade level and, assuming they are as likely to graduate high school, stand to benefit from an additional year of instruction. These factors may increase the likelihood of enduring benefits.

Third-grade retention in Florida has no impact on student absences or special education classifications, but it sharply reduces the probability that the student will be retained in a subsequent grade. Specifically, retained students are 11 percentage points less likely to be retained one year after they were initially held back and roughly 4 percentage points less likely to be retained in each of the following three years. As a result, students retained in third grade after five years are only 0.7 grade levels behind their peers who were immediately promoted to grade four. This implies that one important consequence of the introduction of the test-based promotion policy was to expedite the retention of many students who would have eventually been retained in a later grade. It also suggests that the costs associated with policies that increase retention rates in the early grades are less than is typically assumed because many of them would have received an additional year of schooling anyway as a result of being retained later in their educational careers.

The results for low-performing readers in Florida compare favorably to those observed under a similar policy in Chicago that has been studied using similar methods. Introduced in 1995, Chicago's program combined test-based promotion gates in both math and reading at grades three, six, and eight with mandatory summer school for students failing to meet the promotion standards. These requirements generated small short-term improvements in the achievement of students in grade three but not for those in grade six. Retention in grade eight also increased students' probability of dropping out, while retention in grade six again had no impact. These mixed results imply that retention requirements do not necessarily translate into gains for retained students. They also suggest that early grade retention may be more beneficial for students than retention in later grades. To the extent that this is true, Florida students retained in the third grade who otherwise would have been retained later may have particularly benefited from the state's test-based promotion policy.
Policy Implications
Reducing the number of students who do not acquire basic reading skills in the early grades remains an urgent priority for American public education. According to the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress, one third of all fourth grade students, and fully half of black and Hispanic fourth graders, fail to demonstrate even a basic level of reading proficiency. Improving on this record will require that states provide students at risk of reading difficulty with access to high-quality early childhood education programs, help districts develop early identification systems so that struggling readers can be targeted for intervention, and take steps to improve the quality of instruction in grades K-2. Although often overlooked, this latter issue is critical given evidence that schools often assign less experienced and less effective teachers to those grades, which are typically excluded from state accountability systems.

Policies encouraging the retention of students who have not acquired basic reading skills by third grade are no substitute for the development of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the number of struggling readers. Yet the best available evidence indicates that policies that include appropriate interventions for retained students may well be a useful component of a comprehensive strategy. There is nothing in the research literature proving that such a practice would be harmful to the students who are directly affected, and some evidence to suggest that those students may benefit. Test-based promotion policies may also create new incentives for educators and parents to improve student reading skills prior to third grade. Interestingly, after the initial spike to 21,799 (13.5 percent) retentions, the number of Florida students retained in third grade fell steadily in the six years following the introduction of its test-based promotion policy, reaching 9,562 (5.6 percent) in 2008. This decline was due primarily to a reduction in the number of students failing to meet the promotion standard.

Test-based promotion policies are most likely to be successful if they are accompanied by specific requirements that retained students be provided with additional, research-based instruction in reading and adequate funding to implement those requirements. The apparently positive effects of the Florida reform reflect the combined effect of retention and the remedial services made available to retained students, and common sense suggests that retention should not imply an exact repetition of what came before. Policymakers must also take care to provide local educators with sufficient discretion to make decisions they believe are in the best interest of the child without compromising the goal of increased accountability and access to focused support. Finally, continued research is needed to document the effects of test-based promotion policies on the long-run outcomes of retained students and on the quality of instruction available to all students in the critical early grades. Evidence on these issues is essential in order to determine how the benefits of test-based promotion policies compare to their costs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Retaining Students in the Early Grades Self-Defeating?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With substantial evidence indicating future educational struggles for those children who don't acquire basic reading skills by third grade, Martin West discusses the effectiveness of policies that retain students and provide them with intensive remedial interventions versus those that promote students to keep them with their peers.

# data[].attributes.body
This article examines whether repeating a grade or moving up with their classmates of the same age is better for students who are struggling. According to research, kids who repeat a grade are frequently even worse off than if they had been advanced with their peers. Retention typically duplicates a full academic year. Other options, like summer school, before-and after-school programs, or extra help during the school day, may be able to offer an equivalent amount of additional time in more instructive ways. Whether they are promoted or retained, kids who are struggling are unlikely to catch up without an early diagnosis and focused intervention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this new column, Jane L. David shares with readers what research says about the effectiveness of current education reforms. In the coming months, David will examine the research behind such approaches as incentives to attract teachers to high-poverty schools and small learning communities. In framing the issues and drawing conclusions, she will draw on articles from peer-reviewed journals and reports from research institutions as well as her own 35 years of experience studying schools and districts. We welcome readers' comments at edleadership@ascd.org.

Today's expectation that all students will meet high standards has contributed to a backlash against "social promotion." In this environment, grade retention has been making a comeback.

Educators and policymakers have debated for decades whether struggling students benefit more from repeating a grade or from moving ahead with their same-age peers. The argument for retention is that students who have not met grade-level criteria will fall further and further behind as they move through the grades. A failing 2nd grader, retention advocates argue, would be better served by repeating 2nd grade than by moving on to 3rd grade. Surely a student who could not succeed in 2nd grade will have an even harder time succeeding in 3rd grade.

School systems cannot hold back every student who falls behind; too many would pile up in the lower grades. Moreover, it is expensive to add a year of schooling for a substantial number of students. Therefore, in practice, schools set passing criteria at a level that ensures that most students proceed through the grades at the expected rate.

Although solid statistics are hard to come by, estimates of the number of students retained at least once in their school career range from 10 to 20 percent. Black students are more than twice as likely to be held back as white students, and boys twice as likely as girls (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006).

In the past, teacher judgment played a larger role in decisions about individual students. More recently, in the context of high-stakes testing, states and urban districts have begun formalizing and tightening requirements for promotion, often using a single test score. Drawing such a line in the sand aims to limit teacher discretion to promote students who are struggling academically; it also aims to motivate students to work harder to avoid retention. Policymakers believe that stricter requirements for promotion will increase the proportion of students likely to meet standards at higher grade levels.

Published research on retention is vast. Hundreds of studies have been carried out during the last century, most focused on the elementary grades. As with any large body of research, the studies ask different questions, look at different consequences, and are fraught with methodological problems. It's tricky in most cases to determine whether the students in the study would have fared better if they had been promoted instead of retained.

Jackson (1975) reviewed 44 studies that met a minimal set of methodological criteria. Finding few with significant results or even compelling patterns, he concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the claim that grade retention is more beneficial than grade promotion. About 10 years later, Holmes and Matthews (1984) reviewed an additional 44 studies that all included some type of comparison group of students. These researchers concluded that promoted students had higher academic achievement, better personal adjustment, and more positive attitudes toward school than retained students did.

Moving ahead another 17 years, Jimerson (2001) summarized the historical research and added a carefully culled set of studies conducted between 1990 and 1999, all of which included comparison groups of promoted students. Most of the comparisons showed no significant differences between promoted and retained students on measures of achievement or personal and social adjustment. In those studies that did show a difference, the results favored the promoted students, especially on measures of achievement.

Recent studies have investigated retention in the context of state and district policies to require students to achieve a certain score for promotion. For example, Roderick and Nagaoka (2005) studied the effects of the Chicago Public Schools policy that bases promotion in grades 3, 6, and 8 on standardized test scores. Using comparison groups of students who just missed the promotion cutoff, these researchers found that 3rd graders struggled during the repeated year, had higher rates of special education placement, and two years later showed no advantage over those who had been promoted. Retained 6th graders had lower achievement growth than similar students who were not retained.

Retention can increase the likelihood that a student will drop out of school. Students who drop out are five times more likely to have been retained than those who graduate (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006). Using data from Chicago, Jacob and Lefgren (2007) concluded that students retained in 8th grade were more likely to drop out than their peers, a finding that was not true for retained 6th graders. They speculated that the 6th graders had more opportunities to catch up.

Studies with the strongest research methods compare students who were retained with similar students who were not retained. They ask whether repeating a grade makes a difference in achievement as well as personal and social adjustment over the short run and the long run. Although individual studies can be cited to support any conclusion, overall the preponderance of evidence argues that students who repeat a grade are no better off, and are sometimes worse off, than if they had been promoted with their classmates.

A major weakness in the research on retention is documenting the educational experiences of students who are retained. Roderick &amp; Nagaoka (2005) argue that retention under high-stakes testing presumes the problem lies with the student, not with the school. If the goal of retention is to provide an opportunity for students to catch up, the quality and appropriateness of their academic experiences is likely to be the determining factor. After all, why should repeating the same experience produce a different result?

For most students struggling to keep up, retention is not a satisfactory solution. Nor is promotion. Juxtaposing the two as if these are the only options casts the debate in the wrong terms. The challenge is figuring out what it takes to help failing students catch up. Understanding why a particular student has fallen behind points to the best course of action.

For many students, especially those who start school far behind their peers, intensive intervention, even prior to kindergarten, may be the best path to success. For students who are frequently absent, understanding and addressing the reasons for their absences might be the solution.

Retention usually duplicates an entire year of schooling. Other options-such as summer school, before-school and after-school programs, or extra help during the school day-could provide equivalent extra time in more instructionally effective ways. Without early diagnosis and targeted intervention, struggling students are unlikely to catch up whether they are promoted or retained.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Research Says About... / Grade Retention - ASCD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this new column, Jane L. David shares with readers what research says about the effectiveness of current education reforms. In the coming months, David will examine the research behind such approaches as incentives to attract teachers to high-poverty schools and small learning communities. In fra

# data[].attributes.headline
Harvard Research Study on Retention - When Kids Are Held Back, Gains Can Follow

# data[].attributes.subject
Harvard Research Study on Retention - When Kids Are Held Back, Gains Can Follow

# data[].attributes.body
Low-performing kids may gain from the chance for further instruction and services, which is one of the retention's potential advantages. However, negative effects could include lowered academic expectations or stigmatization. This article focuses on a study by Schwerdt et al. which found that short-term reading and math achievement was found to benefit significantly from retention in the third grade. Although these initial gains eroded with time, children who had been held back entered high school performing at a higher level relative to their grade level than peers who'd been promoted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When Kids Are Held Back, Gains Can Follow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roughly 10 percent of children in the United States are retained at least once between kindergarten and eighth grade, West writes. Those rates could rise in the coming years, since 16 states and the District of Columbia have enacted policies requiring that students who do not demonstrate basic reading proficiency when they first take state tests in third grade be held back.

# data[].attributes.headline
Effect of Grade Retention in First Grade on Psychosocial Outcomes

# data[].attributes.subject
Effect of Grade Retention in First Grade on Psychosocial Outcomes

# data[].attributes.body
In a four-year longitudinal study, the authors looked at how retention in first grade affected children's externalizing and internalizing behaviors, social acceptance, and behavioral, cognitive, and affective involvement. Children who were retained were found to benefit from retention compared to children who were promoted in terms of decreased teacher-rated hyperactivity, decreased peer-rated sorrow and withdrawal, and enhanced teacher-rated behavioral engagement in both the short and long periods. Retained children outperformed promoted children in the near term in terms of peer ratings of liking and school belongingness, but this advantage significantly declined over time. Children's perceptions of school belonging and academic self-efficacy were both influenced favorably by retention, both in the short term and over the long run. The short-term benefits of retention might outweigh the established long-term negative impacts of retention, but the latter could have a negative impact on social acceptance in the long run.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 May 5.

Published in final edited form as:

Abstract

In a 4-year longitudinal study, the authors investigated effects of retention in first grade on children's externalizing and internalizing behaviors; social acceptance; and behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement. From a large multiethnic sample ( n = 784) of children below the median on literacy at school entrance, 124 retained children were matched with 251 promoted children on the basis of propensity scores (probability of being retained in first grade estimated from 72 baseline variables). Relative to promoted children, retained children were found to benefit from retention in both the short and longer terms with respect to decreased teacher-rated hyperactivity, decreased peer-rated sadness and withdrawal, and increased teacher-rated behavioral engagement. Retained children had a short-term increase in mean peer-rated liking and school belongingness relative to promoted children, but this advantage showed a substantial decrease in the longer term. Retention had a positive short-term effect on children's perceived school belonging and a positive longer term effect on perceived academic self-efficacy. Retention may bestow advantages in the short-term, but longer term detrimental effects on social acceptance may lead to the documented longer term negative effects of retention.

Keywords: grade retention, growth curve model, propensity score, optimal matching, psychosocial outcomes

For at least the past 4 decades, grade retention, the practice of having 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, has been a common but controversial educational practice ( Holmes, 1989; Jackson, 1975; Lorence, 2006). With the increase in high stakes testing that began in the early 1990s and the related requirement that students meet grade-level academic competencies, grade retention has increased in frequency ( Bali, Anagnostopoulos, & Roberts, 2005; Gootman, 2005; Roderick & Nagaoka, 2005). In 2004, U.S. Census data revealed that 9.6% of U.S. youths ages 16-19 years had been retained in grade one or more times. In Texas, the location of the current study, during the 2003-2004 school year, retention in first grade, the focal grade in the current study, was 6.4%, compared with 5.8% in 1994-1995, prior to implementation of high stakes testing ( Texas Education Agency, 2005). These data suggest an increase of more than 10%, as compared with a decade earlier, in the proportion of children being retained in first grade.

Given the prevalence of grade retention, one might expect that it enjoys strong empirical support. On the contrary, the current empirical evidence of the effects of grade retention on both academic and social-emotional adjustment is inconsistent but is widely characterized in published literature as negative (for meta-analyses, see Holmes, 1989; Jimerson, 2001a; for narrative reviews, see Jimerson, 2001b; Shepard, Smith, & Marion, 1996). However, the widely acknowledged methodological limitations of published studies make it difficult to reach firm conclusions regarding a causal role for grade retention on achievement ( Hong & Raudenbush, 2005; Lorence, 2006; Wu, West, & Hughes, 2008b). The most challenging design issue in studies of the effect of grade retention is that of making causal inferences about grade retention in the absence of a randomized experimental design ( Campbell & Stanley, 1966; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002; West & Thoemmes, 2008). Because students are not randomly assigned to the intervention (i.e., retention or promotion), a failure to adequately control for pre-existing differences between retained and promoted students that may affect students' academic and social trajectories leaves open the possibility that pre-existing vulnerabilities rather than retention may be the cause of postretention outcomes. Retention researchers have attempted to minimize the influence of such confounding variables that may be related to both the retention decision and the academic and social outcomes. Commonly, researchers have addressed this issue by selecting promoted students who are matched to retained students on achievement-relevant variables or by statistically controlling for preretention variables that predict achievement, such as family variables, child characteristics, or academic performance. However, these attempts often fall short. In a qualitative review of 18 studies included in Jimerson's (2001a) often-cited meta-analysis, Lorence (2006) judged that only four studies had both adequate comparison groups and statistical controls.

In addition to methodological limitations, research on the effects of grade retention is limited by its largely atheoretical basis. Virtually absent in the literature are prospective studies that address developmentally informed hypotheses regarding how grade retention affects achievement. Researchers have speculated that the effects of grade retention on achievement and achievement-related outcomes (e.g., school completion) are mediated by more proximal psychosocial variables ( Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 2003; Pagani, Tremblay, Vitaro, Boulerice, & McDuff, 2001). Consistent with developmental systems and transactional theories of development ( Lerner, 1998; Sameroff, 1975), it is probable that retention in the elementary grades influences multiple risk and protective processes. These effects may unfold over time, affecting different dimensions of functioning during different developmental periods, with some effects not emerging until later developmental periods ( Coie et al., 1993).

Consistent with such dynamic theories of development, in one of the most detailed and longest studies of the effects of retention in first grade on academic and behavioral outcomes through high school, Alexander, Entwisle, and Dauber (2003) found that early-retained children in Baltimore schools, relative to matched promoted children, were more likely to drop out of school in adolescence, despite performing better in their coursework than promoted children. Alexander et al. (2003) concluded: "Retention, so far as we can determine, does not impede ... children academically or assault their self-esteem in the early years, yet something about the experience apparently weakened repeaters' attachment to school" (p. ix). Identifying the effects of early retention on students' psychosocial functioning and social relationships at school during the elementary grades is a necessary step in building more comprehensive developmental models that test theoretically and empirically informed hypotheses regarding the processes responsible for retention's effects on both psychosocial and academic outcomes in later grades.

In the present study, we investigated the effects of retention in first grade on children's behavior problems, social acceptance, and engagement. We carefully matched retained and nonretained children using modern propensity score procedures ( Rosenbaum, 2002) that closely equate nonrandomized groups. Our study was informed by the prior literature, a transactional perspective, and theorizing based on social comparison theory ( Festinger, 1954) and the big fish, little pond effect ( Marsh & Craven, 2002). Children were assessed each year for 4 years, permitting us to separate the short- and longer term effects of retention, which have often differed in previous research ( Alexander et al., 2003; Hong & Yu, 2008; Pierson & Connell, 1992). Through the use of these techniques, we sought to address many of the limitations of prior research and provide a clearer picture of the effects of early grade retention.

Social Comparison Theory and Retention Effects

Social comparison theory ( Festinger, 1954) offers a potentially useful theoretical framework for understanding retention's short-term and longer term effects. The theory posits that individuals use cues in their environment to make inferences about their own and others' relative abilities. Classrooms provide multiple cues of children's relative abilities, including teachers' differential responses to students' responses, public praise and criticism, length of time provided for children to answer a question, graded assignments, and student grouping based on ability ( Brophy, 1983; Jussim, 1986; Mac Iver, 1988; Weinstein, Marshall, Sharp, & Botkin, 1987). Children as young as first graders use these cues in making inferences about their own and peers' abilities ( Stipek, 1981; Stipek & Tannatt, 1984). Social comparison theory has been used to explain the big fish, little pond phenomenon ( Marsh & Craven, 2002), which refers to the boost in self-perceived competence that accompanies a downward shift in the ability level of one's social frame of reference.

Grade retention brings about such a change in reference. During the repeat year, the retained child is, on average, 1 year older than his or her grade mates and has 1 additional year of experience with the curriculum and classroom routines. Research on the short-term effects of grade retention has found that retained children improve in achievement relative to their younger grade mates ( Anderson, Jimerson, & Whipple, 2005; Gleason, Kwok, & Hughes, 2007; Pierson & Connell, 1992); however, as the number of years postretention increases, these benefits diminish ( Hong & Yu, 2008; Pierson & Connell, 1992; Wu, West, & Hughes, 2008a). The retained child is also likely to improve more than promoted students in the short term in meeting classroom expectations for behavioral and social competencies. Social immaturity (e.g., difficulty paying attention, excessive motor activity, poor social skills, poor emotional regulation) is a primary reason teachers give for retaining a child ( Tomchin & Impara, 1992). During the early elementary grades, the self-regulatory skills important to behavioral and emotional functioning are developing rapidly ( Blair, 2002; Kochanska, Murray, & Coy, 1997). With an extra year of physical maturation, the retained child's abilities to inhibit impulsive actions, to focus attention, and to conform to classroom rules are expected to improve relative to the prior year and relative to his or her (younger) classmates. In the longer term, however, the benefit of an extra year of maturation may wane.

Previous Research on Retention Effects on Psychosocial Outcomes

Empirical Studies of Retention Effects on Psychosocial Adjustment

Jimerson (2001a) conducted a meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 1990 and 1999 reporting a total of 77 effect sizes for socioemotional and behavioral adjustment. These studies yielded a mean weighted effect size of −.22 (Cohen's d; Cohen, 1988), indicating that promoted students fared better than did retained students. However, the large majority (86%) of the analyses yielded no statistically significant differences between retained and comparison students on socioemotional adjustment. Because nearly all of these studies failed to include adequate controls for potential baseline differences on psychosocial variables between the retained and promoted children, the results are not conclusive.

Given our ultimate interest in identifying the shorter term effects of retention on adjustment that may mediate its longer term effect on achievement, we focused our literature review on psychosocial variables for which there is empirical evidence of a link to achievement. These variables can be categorized into three psychosocial adjustment domains: behavioral adjustment (externalizing and internalizing behaviors), social acceptance, and engagement in learning (including behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement) For each domain, we summarize evidence related to two links: (a) the potential role of the psychosocial variable in achievement and (b) the effects of retention on functioning in that psychosocial domain. We focus our review on studies published since 1990, which represent more contemporary conditions of schooling and populations of school children.

Externalizing Problems

Linkages with achievement

The relation between externalizing and achievement is complex. A number of prospective investigations have documented that high levels of externalizing problems predict lower academic performance, after controlling for previous levels of academic performance ( Hinshaw, 1992; Masten et al., 2005; Miles & Stipek, 2006; Risi, Gerhardstein, & Kistner, 2003; Trzesniewski, Moffitt, Caspi, Taylor, & Maughan, 2006).

Effect of retention on externalizing behaviors

Some authors posit that the frustration and humiliation associated with repeating the curriculum, combined with one's physical size, may result in an increase in aggression and oppositional behavior ( Pagani et al., 2001). Studies investigating effects of grade retention on externalizing problems have produced inconsistent findings, with the majority of studies finding no effects ( Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1994; Jimerson, Carlson, Rotert, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1997; Mantzicopoulos & Morrison, 1992; McCombs Thomas et al., 1992; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999). Some researchers have reported that retention increases students' externalizing problems ( Pianta, Tietbohl, & Bennett, 1997; Pagani et al., 2001), whereas at least one study documented that retention results in a decrease in externalizing problems ( Gottfredson, Fink, & Graham, 1994). Variations in the timing of retention, the length of the follow-up, and the adequacy of controls for selection factors may contribute to inconsistent findings.

Internalizing Behaviors

Linkages with achievement

Poor academic performance is linked with symptoms of both anxiety ( Beidel, 1991; Hembree, 1988) and depression ( Herman, Lambert, Reinke, & Ialongo, 2008; Schwartz, Gorman, Duong, & Nakamoto, 2008). The association between academic performance and anxiety/depression may be due in part to reciprocal causal processes ( Cole, Martin, & Powers, 1997). Anxious thoughts and feelings may disrupt attention and concentration and lead to the pursuit of performance avoidance goals, lowering performance on academic tasks ( McDonald, 2001). Anxiety related to one's academic performance is thought to lead to the pursuit of performance-avoidance goals that impede learning ( Elliot, Sheldon, & Church, 1997) Depressed individuals may also avoid academic challenge and fail to persist in the face of failure, thereby failing to learn skills necessary for successful academic performance ( Strauss, Lahey, & Jacobsen, 1982). Recent longitudinal studies of elementary students find that learning problems, especially reading difficulties, have a stronger effect on internalizing symptoms (anxiety and depression) than internalizing symptoms have on achievement ( Ackerman, Izard, Kobak, Brown, & Smith, 2007; Maughan, Rowe, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2003).

Effect of retention on internalizing behaviors

Research on the effects of grade retention on internalizing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and withdrawal has produced mixed findings. Studies that did not control for preretention levels of internalizing symptoms have reported negative effects of retention on internalizing symptoms ( Jimerson et al., 1997; McCombs Thomas et al., 1992; Meisels & Liaw, 1993; Pianta et al., 1997). Hong and Yu (2008) used propensity strata to adjust for selection effects and HLM to address school effects in a large data set representative of the U.S. population. Hong and Yu found that at a 2-year follow-up, the repeat-year students who had been retained in kindergarten had fewer child-reported internalizing problem behaviors than would be expected if they had been promoted. In contrast, Pagani et al. (2001) found a negative effect of retention on children's internalizing problems. Differences may be due to differences in the grade retained (kindergarten in Hong & Yu, 2008, and elementary grades in Pagani et al., 2001) or to differences in the educational systems in the United States and Quebec.

Social Acceptance

Linkages with academic achievement

Children who are more accepted and less rejected by their classmates are likely to perform better academically ( Buhs & Ladd, 2001; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Zettergren, 2003). Longitudinal studies find that the positive relation between peer acceptance (or rejection) and academic achievement holds even when the effect of prior levels of achievement is statistically controlled ( Buhs, 2005; Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006). The effect of peer acceptance on achievement may be mediated by the effect of peer acceptance on a student's engagement in the classroom ( Ladd et al., 1999) and academic self-efficacy beliefs ( Flook, Repetti, & Ullman, 2005).

Effect of retention on social acceptance

The few studies on the effects of retention on peer acceptance have relied on teacher or parent reports or on the child's own perceptions of peer support rather than on peer assessments of liking for the child. The results have been inconsistent. For example, when kindergarten teachers were asked to rate classroom behavior and peer acceptance, they rated retained students as being less well liked by classmates than low-achieving promoted students ( Pianta et al., 1997). In the methodologically rigorous Hong and Yu (2008) study, described above, no effect for kindergarten retention on teacher-rated peer acceptance was found 2 and 4 years postretention. In studies asking students to report on their perceived social acceptance, no differences are found between retained and ability-matched promoted students ( Gottfredson et al., 1994; Hagborg, Masella, Palladino, & Shepardson, 1991; Pierson & Connell, 1992).

Engagement

Linkages with achievement

The construct of engagement in learning is widely viewed as multidimensional, encompassing behavioral (e.g., persisting on tasks, following classroom rules), affective (e.g., liking school, sense of school belonging), and cognitive (e.g., believing that one is academically capable, possessing a learning or mastery orientation) dimensions ( Alexander et al., 1993; Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006; Finn, 1989; Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Appleton et al. described the affective and cognitive dimensions of engagement as motivational processes that drive "the direction, intensity, and quality of one's energies" and behavior engagement as "energy in action" (p. 428).

Prospective studies with elementary students have documented effects of behavioral engagement on achievement, above levels of prior achievement ( Alexander et al., 1993; Greenwood, 1991; Hughes, Luo, Kwok, & Loyd, 2008; Ladd et al., 1999; Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck, & Connell, 1998). With respect to affective engagement, Valeski and Stipek (2001) found that first graders' perceived liking for school was positively associated with academic skills assessments. Ladd, Buhs, and Seid (2000) found that school liking in kindergarten fosters classroom engagement, which leads to higher achievement. An extensive body of research with older elementary and middle-school students documents longitudinal associations between students' academic self-efficacy beliefs, an aspect of cognitive engagement, and achievement (for reviews, see Pajares, 1996; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006). Furthermore, children as young as first grade who report higher perceptions of academic competence are more behaviorally engaged in school (e.g., Hughes & Zhang, 2007).

Effect of grade retention on engagement

Findings on the effect of retention on different dimensions of engagement are mixed. A finding of no effect is most common for behavioral engagement ( Ferguson, 1991; Gottfredson et al., 1994; Pierson & Connell, 1992), liking for or interest in school ( Alexander et al., 1994; Hagborg et al., 1991), and academic self-efficacy ( Alexander et al. 1994; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999; Phelps, Dowdell, Rizzo, Ehrlich, & Wilczenski, 1992). The few findings of negative effects tend to come from studies with poor controls for preselection differences ( Hagborg et al., 1991; Pianta et al., 1997). Importantly, a study using strong controls for preretention vulnerabilities reported positive effects of retention in the kindergarten grades on academic self-efficacy 2 and 4 years later ( Hong & Yu, 2008). In a longitudinal study of a predominantly African American, urban sample, retention in the primary grades had a positive effect on academic self-efficacy in fourth grade ( Reynolds, 1992), but this effect disappeared by the age of 14 years ( McCoy & Reynolds, 1999), suggesting that the short-term and longer term effects of early grade retention on self-efficacy may differ.

The Present Study

Drawing on social comparison theory in general and the big fish, little pond effect more specifically, we expected that retained students would show improvements in psychosocial adjustment across the board during their repeat year, relative to their propensity score-matched peers. However, contrary to the view that the enhanced social and academic performance during the repeat year will be a turning point for retained students ( Tomchin & Impara 1992), we hypothesized that retained children's short-term gains will diminish over the span of 2 to 4 years as they struggle in meeting new academic challenges and classroom social comparison cues no longer favor them. In other words, we expect that the "gift of time" has an expiration date for at least some aspects of psychosocial adjustment and peer relations. These expectations are informed by two studies with this same longitudinal data set. First, in a study investigating only academic outcomes and using piecewise growth modeling, Wu et al. (2008a) found that retention led to improved scores relative to same-grade peers on measures of math and reading achievement, as measured by Woodcock-Johnson grade standard scores ( Woodcock & Johnson, 1989; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) in the short term (Years 1-2). However, these short-term gains in grade-level math and reading diminished over the next 2 years as retained students encountered novel curricula and routines. Second, Gleason et al. (2007) found that retained students, relative to same-age promoted peers, were better accepted by their classmates during their repeat year (Year 2), and that this effect was completely mediated by teacher and peer perceptions of students' academic competence during Year 2. The current study extends our prior work by investigating multiple dimensions of psychosocial adjustment over 4 years using stronger controls for selection effects than were used in the Gleason et al. study.

We used two primary approaches to address the issue of the baseline comparability of retained and promoted children that has plagued previous studies ( Lorence, 2006). First, prior to any of the children being retained, we selected and comprehensively assessed a sample of children who had scores below the 50th percentile on school district tests of reading. This approach allowed us to focus on the group of children who were at some risk of being retained given the known relationship between retention and poor reading skills. Second, we used propensity score matching, which corrects for selection bias associated with all measured covariates ( Rosenbaum, 2002; West & Thoemmes, in press). This approach allowed us to closely match retained and nonretained children on the basis of an extensive, carefully chosen set of variables collected at baseline. Taken together, these approaches allowed us to estimate a meaningful treatment effect-the causal effect of retention for the treated, that is, those children who were actually retained in first grade (see Schafer & Kang, 2008). In research contexts in which a large proportion of the population (here, the higher achieving children) have no probability of receiving the treatment, the estimate of the causal effect should be based only on those children who could potentially receive the treatment ( Rubin, 2005).

For our primary analyses, we used growth curve modeling that permits estimation of each child's trajectory of growth on teacher and peer reports of students' internalizing and externalizing behaviors, peer reports of acceptance, and teacher reports of student effortful engagement in the classroom. We measured each of these variables using the identical measurement instrument at each measurement wave, meeting the requirements for growth curve modeling. With four waves of data, we could examine the effects of retention on both the short-term and longer term growth on each outcome, using piecewise linear trajectory models ( Singer & Willett, 2003). This approach allowed us to compare the differences in the growth of the retained and promoted children in the short term (Year 1 through Year 2), when retained children are repeating the first-grade curriculum, as well as in subsequent years (Year 2 through Year 4), when retained and promoted children are exposed to novel curricula at new grade levels. In accordance with our hypotheses, we expected that short- and longer term effects would differ on several of the variables. We collected two additional relevant psychosocial variables (i.e., children's perceived self-concept and school belonging), but consistent with the current recommendations of the test developers, assessed these using different, developmentally appropriate measures over the 4 years of the study. Because these measures do not share a common metric across the 4 years of the study, growth curve modeling was not possible ( Khoo, West, Wu, & Kwok, 2006). For these measures, we were only able to compare the levels of the retained and promoted children at each time point.

Method

Participants

Participants were drawn from a larger sample of children participating in a longitudinal study examining the impact of grade retention. Participants were recruited from three school districts Texas (one urban district and two small city districts) across two sequential cohorts in first grade during the fall of 2001 and 2002 The composition of the urban school district was 41% White non-Hispanic, 37% economically disadvantaged, and 11% limited English proficient. Enrollment in one of the small city school districts was 40% White non-Hispanic, 61% economically disadvantaged, and 11% limited English proficient. The enrollment the second small city school district was 69% White non-Hispanic, 24% economically disadvantaged, and 5.2% limited English proficient. Children were eligible to participate in the longitudinal study if they scored below the median on a state-approved district administered measure of literacy, spoke either English or Spanish, were not receiving special education services, and had not been previously retained in first grade. Teachers were asked to distribute consent forms to parents of all 1,374 eligible children via children's weekly folders; thus the exact number of parents who actually received the consent forms could not be determined Teachers and parents were told that the purpose of the study was to learn more about factors that influence children's adjustment and success in school. Incentives for returning the consent forms, regardless of whether consent was granted, in the form of small gifts to children (e.g., erasers, fancy pencils) and the opportunity win a larger prize in a random drawing were instrumental obtaining a return of 1,200 consent forms placed in children's folders. A total of 784 parents (65%) provided consent, and 416 declined. The research was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Texas A&M University, Arizona State University, and each school district's research advisory team.

Analyses of a broad array of archival variables-including performance on the district-administered test of literacy (standardized within district as a result of differences in test used), age, gender, ethnicity, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, bilingual class placement, cohort, and school context variables (i.e. percentage ethnic/racial minority; percentage economically disadvantaged-did not indicate any differences between children with and without consent. The resulting sample of 784 participants (52.6% male, 47.4% female) closely resembles the population from which the participants were drawn on demographic and literacy variables relevant to students' educational performance The ethnic composition of the achieved ( n = 784) sample was 37% Hispanic (39% of whom were Spanish language dominant), 34% White Caucasian, 23% African American, and 6% other; 62% of the children qualified for free or reduced cost lunch. The mean Full Scale IQ based on the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test ( Bracken & McCallum, 1998) for the sample was 92.91 ( SD = 18.01), and the mean reading achievement score was 96.40 ( SD = 14.28).

Participants for the growth curve analysis consisted of the 375 children (33% retained, 53% male) who were successfully matched with respect to their propensity to be retained in first grade (see description of propensity score matching procedure below). The racial/ethnic composition of the sample was 35% Caucasian, 34% Hispanic, 27% African American, and 4% other. For each outcome, we only included those participants who had observations on that outcome for at least one of the four assessment periods in the growth curve modeling. The number of retained and promoted children who were included in the analysis for each of the outcomes is shown in Table 1 . The mean correlations among the 10 outcome measures across measurement waves are presented in Table 2 .

Overview of Design and Measures

Demographic information, including child age, gender, race/ethnicity, eligibility for free or reduced lunch, and status as limited English proficient (LEP), was obtained from school district records. Teacher and peer data were collected annually beginning when all participants were in first grade.1 Teachers and parents received $25 for completing and returning the questionnaires. Peers' perceptions of the level of externalizing behaviors were obtained via individual interviews. Children's perceived self-efficacy and sense of school belonging were also obtained in individual interviews. To minimize language factors in children's responses, LEP children, children in bilingual classrooms, and children with Hispanic surnames were first administered a language proficiency test by a Spanish-English bilingual examiner to establish the child's dominant language, and all tests were administered in that language.

A total of 72 baseline variables were collected at measurement Wave 1 and used in the calculation of propensity scores. The baseline variables included demographic measures, cognitive and behavioral performance, social and emotional functioning, and classroom and school variables. The 72 variables were intended to be as comprehensive as possible, including variables that have been shown in prior research to be related to early retention versus promotion, outcomes, or ideally both.2

A total of eight teacher and peer report measures of psychosocial outcomes served as the primary outcome measures for this study, as shown in Table 1 . These measures were administered on an annual basis to teachers and peers (described below). Two additional child report outcomes were assessed with age-appropriate measures at each measurement wave. The descriptive statistics for the eight teacher- and peer-reported and two child- reported outcomes for retained and promoted children at each of the four time points are also shown in Table 1 .

Measures

Externalizing behaviors

Teacher-reported hyperactivity and conduct problems

Teachers completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997, 2001), a brief (25-item) screening measure for psychopathology. Each item is rated on a three-point scale (0 = not true; 1 = somewhat true; 2 = certainly true). The SDQ yields five scales composed of 5 items each. Coefficient alpha for the Conduct Problem scale ranged from .82 to .83 across the four waves. Coefficient alpha for the Hyperactivity scale ranged from .86 to .88. One-year test-retest correlations (stability coefficients) for adjacent measurement waves ranged from .57 to .67 for conduct problems and from .57 to .61 for hyperactivity. In a sample of children participating in this longitudinal study, teacher reports of conduct problems and hyperactivity were moderately to strongly correlated with both parent and peer reports ( Hill & Hughes, 2007). Factor analyses support the construct validity of the SDQ ( Dickey & Blumberg, 2004; Hill & Hughes, 2007).

Peer-reported hyperactivity and conduct problems

We followed procedures widely recommended in the peer assessment literature ( Cillessen & Bukowski, 2000) to assess peers' perceptions of classmates' hyperactivity and aggression. In individual interviews, students were presented with a roster containing the names of all classmates. The interviewer read all classmates' names and asked the child if he or she knew each child. The interviewer then asked children to nominate as few or as many classmates as they wished who fit each descriptor. The aggression item read: "Some kids start fights, say mean things, or hit others." The hyperactivity item read: "Some kids do strange things and make a lot of noise. They bother people who are trying to work." Each class member received an aggression score and a hyperactivity score based on the number of nominations that the child received. Stability coefficients across the 4 years ranged from .45 to .52 for aggression and from .47 to .48 for hyperactivity. Sociometric scores were standardized within classrooms. Written parental consent was obtained for each child who participated in the sociometric interview. However, all children in a classroom were eligible to be rated or nominated. The mean rate of classmate participation in the sociometric administrations was .65 (range = .40 to .95). Elementary school children's peer nomination scores derived from procedures similar to those used in this study have been found to be reliable and stable over periods of 6 weeks to 4 years and to be associated with concurrent and future behavior and adjustment ( Cillessen & Bukowski, 2000; Realmuto, August, Sieler, & Pessoa-Brandao, 1997).

Internalizing problems

Teacher-rated emotional problems

The five-item Emotional Problems scale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire ( Goodman, 1997), described above, assessed children's sad and withdrawn behaviors. Across the 4 years, coefficient alpha ranged from .69 to .77. Scores correlated significantly with parent and peer reports of emotional problems, and the scale was supported by confirmatory factor analyses ( Hill & Hughes, 2007).

Peer-rated emotional problems

Using peer nomination procedures described above, classmates were asked to nominate children who met the following description: "Some kids cry a lot and look sad." Nominations were summed and standardized within classrooms. Stability coefficients across the 4 years ranged from .33 to .42. The lower stability coefficients for sad/withdrawn behaviors likely reflect the greater difficulty that peers have in discerning more covert constructs compared with more observable constructs ( Funder & West, 1993).

Behavioral engagement

Teachers completed a 10-item Likert-type scale. Example items are "Is a reliable worker"; "Perseveres until the task is finished"; "Tends to be lazy" (reverse scored), "Is easily distracted"; and "Sets and works toward goals." Coefficient alpha for the scale ranged from .91 to .95 across the four measurement waves. The stability coefficients for teacher-rated behavioral engagement ranged from .55 to .61. In a sample of children participating in this longitudinal study, teacher-rated engagement on this measure predicted cross-year academic achievement, above the effects of prior achievement, IQ, antisocial engagement, and family background variables ( Hughes et al., 2008).

Affective engagement: Sense of school belonging

On the basis of developmental considerations, the measure of school belonging used in Years 1-3 (the initial primary grades) differed from that introduced at Year 4. In Years 1-3, an experimenter-developed measure was used to evaluate children's perception of liking for and sense of belonging at school. In individual interviews, children were asked to indicate how they felt in response to five statements about school by pointing to one of five faces whose expressions ranged from very sad (1) to very happy (5). Example items included "How much does your teacher enjoy spending time with you?"; "How much do you like to go to school?"; and "How do you feel when you are at school?" Coefficient alpha values for the scale were .60, .61, and .67 at Grades 1, 2, and 3 for the sample. In Year 4, students were administered the Psychological Sense of School Membership ( Goodenow, 1993) instrument, which asks students to indicate their agreement, on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 18 items that assess students' perceived acceptance, feelings of inclusion, and encouragement for participation ( Goodenow, 1993). The scale has good evidence of validity ( Goodenow, 1993; Hagborg, 1998). Coefficient alpha for the scale was .83.

Cognitive engagement: Perceived academic self-efficacy

In Years 1 and 2, we used the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children (PSPCSA; Harter & Pike, 1981) to assess children's academic self-efficacy beliefs. The Cognitive Competence subscale consists of six items. For each item, children are presented with pictures of two children who are described in contrasting ways (e.g., "This girl is good at spelling"; "This girl is not good at spelling"). Children are then asked which child is more like them. After making their choice, children are asked if that child is a little or a lot like them. The procedure yields a 4-point scale for each item. Example items are "good at numbers," "knows a lot in school," and "can read alone." Coefficient alpha for the scale for our sample was .77 and .71 at Years 1 and 2, respectively. In Years 3 and 4, the children's perceived reading and math competencies were assessed with the Competence Beliefs and Subjective Task Values Questionnaire ( Wigfield et al., 1997). Children were asked how good they are in that domain, how good they are relative to the other things they do, how good they are relative to other children, how well they expected to do in the future in that domain, and how good they thought they would be at learning something new in that domain. Children were asked to indicate their response by pointing to a 0-to 30-point thermometer-type scale, with 0 being the lowest and 30 being the highest. This questionnaire has strong evidence of reliability and validity with students as young as third graders ( Wigfield et al., 1997). Coefficient alpha for our sample was .82 and .84 at Years 3 and 4, respectively.

Social acceptance

Children also were asked to indicate their liking for each child in the classroom on a 5-point scale. The interviewer named each child in the classroom and asked the child to point to one of five faces ranging from sad (1 = don't like at all) to happy (5 = like very much). A child's mean liking score was the average rating received by classmates. Scores were standardized within classrooms. Ratings of peer liking are relatively stable over the elementary school years and are associated with a number of indices of behavioral adjustment ( Bierman, 2004; Hughes, 1990) The stability coefficient for the mean liking score ranged from .45 to .52 across the four measurement waves.

Propensity Score Estimation

Propensity scores, the predicted probability of being retained in first grade, were estimated for the full sample of 768 children for whom retention information was available. We used 72 background variables collected at the initial testing, including child demographic variables; child, peer, teacher, and parent data covering the areas of academic aptitude (e.g., the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test); academic achievement (Woodcock-Johnson III or the Spanish-language Batería-R broad math and reading), personality (e.g., agreeableness, effortful control), behavioral and social adjustment, peer relations, and family adversity. Methods based on logistic regression ( Rosenbaum, 2002; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983) were used to estimate propensity scores. The logistic regression equation led to relatively good prediction of the decision to retain or promote each child, with a Nagelkerke pseudo R ² index of .552 (see Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003, p. 503).

The propensity score can range from 0 to 1. The larger the propensity score, the higher the probability that the child would be retained in the first grade. For the 768 children who were below the median on reading at school entrance, the propensity score ranged from .0003 to .989, with M = .215 and SD = .215. In this full sample of at-risk children, the children who were subsequently promoted had substantially lower propensity scores ( N = 603; M = .126, SD = .163) than did those who were subsequently retained ( N = 165; M = .540, SD = .292), t(766) = −23.82; Cohen's d = −2.09, p < .001. Figure 1A shows separate kernel density estimates of the distribution of propensity scores for promoted and retained children for the 768 cases. Kernel density estimates smooth the data, providing an estimate of the distributions for the retained and promoted children in the population ( Cohen et al., 2003, pp. 105-108). The figure shows that the distribution of propensity scores for the promoted children was highly right-skewed, whereas the distribution for the retained children was relatively uniform across the full range of propensity scores.

Despite identifying an at-risk sample of children who were below the median on literacy at entrance to first grade, we found substantial differences between the retained and promoted groups These results indicated that an adjustment procedure would be needed to equate the retained and promoted groups. Following the recommendations of Rosenbaum (2002), we chose a procedure that produces optimal matches on propensity scores.

Matching Procedure

We matched retained and promoted children on the basis of their propensity scores. Rather than conducting a 1:1 matching between retained and promoted children, we chose to perform 1:many matching, with a variable number of matches between retained and promoted children. Ming and Rosenbaum (2000) showed that this procedure can remove substantially more bias than fixed ratio matching and maximize sample size at the same time. Over the range of propensity scores from .00 to .50, there were more promoted children than retained children in the sample. For this range, we matched 1 retained child with up to 5 (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) promoted children. Over the range of propensity scores from .50 to 1.00, there were more retained children than promoted children in the sample. For this range, we matched each promoted child with up to 5 retained children. Otherwise stated, a target child was selected from the smaller group (retained group for a propensity score of <.50; promoted group for a propensity score of ≥.50) and was then matched with up to 5 children from the other, larger group. To assure high-quality matching, we imposed a caliper distance of .025, the maximum distance in propensity scores that was allowed for a match to take place. That is, any pair of retained and promoted children who differed in their propensity scores by more than .025 could not be matched with each other.

SAS 8.0 PROC ASSIGN was used to implement the matching ( Ming & Rosenbaum, 2001).3 PROC ASSIGN matches retained children with promoted children so that the sum of the distances between the propensity scores within each of the matched sets was minimized for the whole sample. A total of 80 matched sets were constructed with a total of 251 promoted and 124 retained children. For the 80 matched sets, the propensity score ranged from .003 to .934, with M = .31 and SD = .25. Our empirical range covered virtually the entire theoretical range for the propensity scores (.00 to 1.00). As is shown by the kernel density estimates in Figure 1B , the two groups were closely equated on their propensity scores following the optimal matching process, with the two distributions almost overlapping each other. This result indicates that good balance between the two groups was attained on the propensity scores. Following the recommendation of Rubin (2006), the matching procedures were conducted without any knowledge of the participant's scores on any variable collected after baseline.

To further test whether the matching provides good balance between the retained and promoted groups, we compared the retained and promoted groups on all baseline measures used to calculate the propensity score and the baseline measures for all of the outcomes examined in the study, which includes 75 baseline measures in total. Given space limitations, we report balance for 20 important baseline measures. We divided the propensity scores into five strata (quintile groups): 0-19th percentile; 20-39th percentile, 40th-59th percentile, 60th-79th percentile, and 80th-100th percentile. Next, we tested whether the effect of grade retention on the 20 baseline measures differed from 0 for each of the five groups. For the continuous variables, we conducted a 2 (retained vs. promoted) × 5 (quintile) analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the baseline measures ( Table 3 ). For dichotomous variables, we conducted a parallel 2 (retained vs. promoted) × 5 (quintile) analysis using logistic regression ( Table 4 ). If a baseline measure is well balanced between the retained and promoted groups, then neither the main effect nor the interaction should be different from 0. Tables 3 and ​and4 4 show our matching procedure provided good balance on 18 of the 20 baseline measures.4 The only exceptions among the 20 important baseline variables were the Woodcock-Johnson broad math achievement score and White vs. non-White ethnicity.

Data Analysis

Growth curve modeling for teacher and peer report measures

To investigate the relatively short-term and longer term effects of retention on the change of the teacher and peer report measures, we split the time span into two pieces at the point where measurement wave = 2 (the 2nd year of the study). Thus, short-term change compares the change from Year 1 to Year 2, when the retained children are repeating the first-grade curriculum but the promoted students are encountering new curriculum. Longer term change examines growth from Years 2 through 4, when both the retained and promoted children are encountering new curricula. We fit a linear growth curve on each piece for the eight psychosocial outcomes separately using SAS 8.0 PROC Mixed. Such growth curve models are termed two-piece linear growth curve models ( Singer & Willett, 2003). We used full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) to estimate the growth curve models, given the existence of missing data. FIML utilizes all of the observations available for each case to compute the likelihood function ( Enders & Bandalos, 2001). FIML provides unbiased estimates with minimal standard errors when data are missing at random ( Schafer & Graham, 2002). Otherwise stated, FIML provides estimates that are appropriately corrected for all measured variables included in the analysis.

The specification of the two-piece linear growth curve model for each outcome is shown in Equations 1 to 3 below (see p. 145). The model includes three levels. Level 1 (within individual; Equation 1) estimates the two-piece linear growth trajectory for each individual over the 4 years of the study. At Level 1, two time variables ( T1tip and T2tip), corresponding to the two pieces, were coded to predict the outcome (see Table 5 ). This coding scheme permitted us to test the slope separately for each piece and, further, to test whether the slopes in each piece differ between retained and promoted groups. We centered time at Wave 1 (the point at which both T1tip and T2tip were coded 0); thus the intercept represents the student's initial status on the 10 outcomes in first grade prior to retention or promotion.

Table 5

Time variable

Wave 1

Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

T 1

0

1

1

1

T 2

0

0

1

2

Level 2 (between individuals; Equation 2) captured the variation in individual intercepts and slopes across individuals. At Level 2, the grade retention status following first grade (coded 1 = retained; 0 = promoted) was used to predict the individual intercepts, individual slopes for the short term (slope 1) and individual slopes for the longer term (slope 2). Because the data for the children within the same many-to-one matched set may have higher correlation than those in different matched sets (dependency caused by matching), we added Level 3 (between matched set; Equation 3) to take into account the within matched set correlation for the individual intercepts. This procedure adjusts for biased estimates of the standard errors caused by the dependency, thus leading to more accurate significance tests for the parameter estimates. The effects of retention on slope 1 (short-term effect, γ ₁₁₀) and slope 2 (longer term effect, γ ₂₁₀) are of primary interest. The equations for the three-level model for each of the outcomes are presented below.

Level 1:

Level 2:

Level 3:

Here subscript t indicates time point (Wave 1, 2, 3, or 4), subscript i indicates individual, and subscript p indicates matched set. Ytip is the outcome. γ ₀₀₀ and γ ₁₀₀ represent the grand mean of the intercept and slope 1, respectively, for the promoted group γ ₂₀₀ represents the grand mean of slope 2 for the promoted group γ ₀₁₀ and γ ₁₁₀ represent the estimated effects of grade retention in first grade on the intercept and slope 1, respectively. γ ₂₁₀ represents the effect of grade retention on slope 2. etip represents Level 1 residual for the ith individual within the pth set at wave t, which was assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean (μ) = 0 and homogeneous variance (σ ²) across 4 years. σ ² is the within individual variance in Woodcock-Johnson scores that cannot be accounted for by time. r ₀ ip represents the Level 2 residual in the intercept for the ith individual within the pth matched set, which was assumed to follow a normal distribution, with μ = 0 and variance = τ π00. τ π00 is the between-individual variance in the intercept that cannot be accounted for by grade retention. u ₀₀ p represents the deviation of the mean intercept of the pth set from the grand mean intercept for promoted children, which was also assumed to follow a normal distribution with μ = 0 and variance = τ π00. τ π00 is the between matched set variance in intercept. After including grade retention as a predictor at the individual level (Level 2), we found that residual variances for all of the outcomes were not different from 0. There was also no substantial variance in slopes at Level 3. Thus, in the growth curve models shown in Equations 1, 2 and 3, we constrained the residual variances in slopes at Level 2 and the variances in slopes at Level 3 to 0.

Regression analyses for child report measures

The measures of academic self-efficacy and school belonging shifted over the four measurement waves; we could not conduct growth curve models on these data. Instead, we conducted a series of regression analyses to examine the effect of grade retention on these measures at each measurement wave following retention (Grades 2 to 4). In the regression model, we also included the baseline measure of the outcome variable and the propensity score (probability of being retained at the end of Grade 1) as predictors to control for any difference between the retained and promoted groups prior to retention. Given that there were missing observations for the two outcome variables at Grades 2 to 4, we followed the recommendation of Schafer and Graham (2002) and used multiple imputation (MI) to impute values for the missing data. We generated 50 complete data sets using Proc MI in SAS 9.0. In the imputation model, we included 80 auxiliary variables that had >.30 correlations with the missingness of either of the outcome variables at Grades 2, 3, or 4. The use of auxiliary variables follows the recommendations of Collins, Schafer, and Kam (2001) that the performance of MI can be improved substantially through the use of auxiliary variables that are correlated with missingness. We then ran the regression analyses on each of the 50 data sets and combined the parameter estimates from the 50 runs using PROC MIANALYZE (see Schafer & Graham, 2002).

Results

Growth Curve Modeling of the Teacher and Peer Report Measures

Parameter estimates

Table 6 presents the estimated intercept, linear growth rate in the short term (slope 1), and growth rate in the longer term (slope 2) for both promoted and retained children as well as the effect of retention in the first grade on the intercept, slope 1, and slope 2, which indicate the differences in intercept, slope 1, and slope 2 between retained and promoted children, for each of the teacher and peer report measures. We use S1 P and S2 P to represent slope 1 and slope 2 for promoted children and S1 R and S2 R to represent slope 1 and slope 2 for retained children.

Table 6

Means for promoted children

Means for retained children

Effect of retention on

Model fit

Variable

Intercept

Slope 1

Slope 2

Intercept

Slope 1

Slope 2

Intercept

Slope 1

Slope 2

Conditional concordance correlation

Behavioral adjustment

Externalizing behaviors

Teacher-reported hyperactivity

0.94* (0.05)

−.02 (.04)

−.01 (.08)

1.04* (0.06)

−.20* (.06)

−.01 (.03)

0.10 (0.08)

−.18* (0.08)

−.001 (.04)

0.83

Teacher-reported conduct problems

0.41* (0.04)

−.01 (.03)

−.004 (.02)

0.36* (0.05)

.07 (.05)

−.04 (.06)

−0.03 (0.06)

.08 (.06)

−.04 (.03)

0.86

Peer-reported hyperactivity

0.09 (0.07)

−.01 (.08)

−.02 (.04)

0.18 (0.10)

−.02 (.11)

.004 (.06)

0.09 (0.13)

−.01 (.13)

.02 (.07)

0.78

Peer-reported conduct problems

0.04 (0.08)

.03 (.08)

−.02 (.04)

0.06 (0.11)

.19 (.11)

−.06 (.06)

0.02 (0.13)

.16 (.13)

−.05 (.07)

0.82

Internalizing behaviors

Teacher-reported emotional problems

0.41* (0.03)

−.05 (.04)

.04* (.02)

0.39* (0.04)

−.05 (.05)

−.02 (.03)

−0.02 (0.05)

.01 (.07)

−.06 (.04)

0.31

Peer-reported sad/withdrawn

0.04 (0.07)

−.03 (.08)

.02 (.05)

0.20* (0.10)

−.37* (.12)

.03 (.07)

0.16 (0.12)

−.34* (.14)

.02 (.08)

0.67

Engagement

Teacher-reported behavioral engagement

3.11* (0.07)

.03 (.07)

.05 (.04)

2.90* (0.10)

.46* (.10)

.02 (.05)

−0.21 (0.12)

.43* (.12)

−.02 (.07)

0.78

Social acceptance

Peer-reported liking

3.39* (0.05)

−.25* (.05)

−.03 (.03)

3.38* (0.07)

.21* (.07)

−.23* (.04)

−0.01 (.09)

.46* (.09)

−.20* (.05)

0.75

Retention led to short- or longer term effects on four of the eight outcomes. Retention had a negative effect on short-term slope for teacher-rated hyperactivity (S1 R − S1 P = −.18, with SD = .08; d = −.11, p < .05)5 and peer-rated sad/withdrawn behaviors (S1 R − S1 P = −.34, with SD = .14; d = −.34, p < .05). Retained children experienced a decrease (i.e., improvement) in both teacher-rated hyperactivity (S1 R = −.20, with SD = .06; d = −.19, p < .01) and peer-rated sad/withdrawn behaviors (S1 R = −.37, with SD = .12; d = −.33, p < .01) in the short term (see Figures 2A and 2B ). In contrast, promoted children experienced little change in either teacher-rated hyperactivity or peer-rated sad/withdrawn behaviors in the short term. Retention had a positive effect on short-term slope for behavioral engagement (S1 R − S1 P = .43, with SD = .12; d = .27, p < .01). Retained children showed an increase (i.e., improvement) in behavioral engagement (S1 R = .46, with SD = .10; d = .35, p < .01) in the short term, whereas promoted children showed little change in behavioral engagement in the short term (see Figure 2C ). In the longer term, the retained and promoted children did not differ in their slopes for teacher-rated hyperactivity, peer-rated sad/withdrawn behaviors, or behavioral engagement. This result indicates that the short-term improvements were maintained for these three outcomes.

In addition, retention had a positive effect on short-term slope (S1 R − S1 P = .46, with SD = .09; d = .60, p < .01) and a negative effect on longer term slope (S2 R − S2 P = − .20, with SD = .05; d = −.59, p < .01) for peer-rated liking. Retained children experienced an increase in mean peer-rated liking in the short term (S1 R = .21, with SD = .07; d = .27, p < .01) but a negative slope for mean peer-rated liking (S2 R = −.23, with SD = .04; d = −.67, p < .01) in the longer term (see Figure 2D ). In contrast, for promoted children, there was a decrease in mean peer-rated liking in the short term (S1 P = −.25, with SD = .05; d = −.32, p < .01) and no change in mean peer-rated liking in the longer term. The immediate gains in peer-rated liking for retained relative to promoted children appear to dissipate within a few years after retention.

Promoted children showed an increase in emotional problems (S2 P = .04, with SD = .02; d = .17, p < .05) in the longer term; in contrast, retained children showed little change over the 4 years. However, the differences between the longer term slopes for the retained and promoted children did not attain statistical significance. Both retained and promoted children showed little change in conduct problems, peer-rated aggression, and peer-rated hyperactivity in the short term or longer term.

Model fit

Following Vonesh, Chinchilli, and Pu (1996), we used the conditional concordance correlation (CCC) to examine the fit of the piecewise model with retention as a Level 2 predictor for each of the teacher and peer report measures. Standard fit measures developed for use in confirmatory factor analysis strongly reflect the fit of the covariance structure, whereas the agreement between the observed and estimated individual responses is of primary interest in growth curve models ( Wu, West, & Taylor, in press). Vonesh et al. developed the conditional CCC to assess the agreement between the observed and estimated individual responses in mixed-effects model settings. As a correlational measure, a value of 1 on the conditional CCC indicates a perfect fit and 0 indicates no agreement between the estimated and observed individual responses. As shown in Table 5 , the piecewise model with retention as a Level 2 predictor results in high agreement between estimated and observed individual responses for all of the measures (conditional CCC ranged from .67 to .86), except for the teacher report for emotional problems, which was only moderate (conditional CCC = .31).

Regression Analyses on Student Report Measures

Table 7 shows the combined parameter estimates for the effect of grade retention on academic self-efficacy and school belonging at Grades 2 to 4. Grade retention had no significant effect on students' reports of academic self-efficacy at either Grade 2 or Grade 3 (.01, with SE = .36; 2.31, with SE = 1.41). However, retention did show a positive effect on students' reports of academic self-efficacy at Grade 4 (2.83, with SE = 1.27). Retained children reported having higher academic self-efficacy than promoted children at Grade 4, although the retained and promoted groups did not differ in academic self-efficacy in the shorter term. In contrast, grade retention had a positive effect on student reports of school belonging at Grade 2 (0.46, with SE = .20) but no substantial effect on school belonging at either Grade 3 or Grade 4 (0.40, with SE = .26; 0.42, with SE = .31). This pattern suggests that retained children had higher reports of school belonging than did promoted children during the repeat year but that this advantage disappeared in the longer term.

Discussion

Using two-piece linear growth curve models for teacher- and peer-reported outcomes, we found that retention in the first grade decreased teacher-rated hyperactivity and increased teacher-rated behavioral engagement of children in the repeat year. Retention also decreased peer-rated sad/withdrawn behaviors and increased peer liking in the repeat year. With the exception of peer liking, in the longer term, retained children kept the same growth rate in these outcomes as did the promoted children. These results indicate that retained children benefit from retention in terms of decreased teacher-rated hyperactivity, decreased peer-rated sad/withdrawn behaviors, and increased teacher-rated behavioral engagement in the short term and that this benefit was retained in the longer term. Conversely, the gain that retained children experienced in peer liking during the repeat of first grade was not maintained in the longer term. The results for several other psychosocial outcomes, including teacher-rated conduct problems and emotional problems as well as peer-rated hyperactivity and aggression, showed no short- or longer term effects of retention.

The regression results suggest that retention had a positive effect on children's sense of school belonging in the short term but that this benefit did not last. Retention had a positive effect on children's perceived academic competence at Year 4. The lack of a positive effect of retention on academic self-efficacy in Years 2 and 3 may be due to the lower association between children's perceived academic competence and objective indicators of academic achievement in Grades 1-2 compared with Grades 3 and 4 ( Marsh, Craven, & Debus, 1991).

Our results also should be interpreted in the context of these children's academic performance across the same 4 years. In a companion article with this same longitudinal data set, Wu et al. (2008a) found a positive slope for retention on reading and math grade standard scores in the short term (Years 1-2) and a negative slope for retention in the longer term (Years 2-4). The short-term results for many of the psychosocial variables in the current study are similar to the short-term results for achievement. Consistent with the big fish, little pond effect ( Marsh & Craven, 2002), the change in the frame of reference for retained and promoted students favored the retained child in the short term. However, once the child completed the repeat year, the results became more mixed. Results for teacher-rated hyperactivity, sad/withdrawn behaviors, and behavioral engagement showed sustained positive effects of retention. In contrast, both peer-rated acceptance and self-rated sense of school belonging among retained children relative to promoted children decreased substantially after the repeat year. By Year 4, retained students no longer differed from promoted students on either peer acceptance6 or school belonging.

A lack of maturity is one of the most common reasons teachers give for decisions to retain a child ( Tomchin & Impara, 1992). Our results suggest that retained students do improve on teacher ratings of two aspects of psychosocial adjustment that develop rapidly during this age period. Teacher-rated hyperactivity-inattentiveness (i.e., restless, easily distracted, acting without thinking first) and behavioral engagement (i.e., persisting on tasks, trying hard, making plans. and following through) both improved. Retained children were also viewed by peers as less withdrawn and sad, behaviors that teachers might describe as socially immature. Finally, at Year 4, the retained children reported higher academic self efficacy. Thus, our results offer some support to teachers' judgments that the "gift of an extra year" benefits students, at least through Year 4. The finding of positive effects of retention on perceived academic self efficacy and internalizing behaviors is consistent with results of Hong and Yu (2008), a study that also used propensity scores to minimize selection effects. Together, these two studies suggest that retention in kindergarten and first grade do not harm students' psychosocial adjustment, at least through Grade 4.

The negative effects of retention found in this study are the worsening longer term trajectory for peer liking for retained students and the decrease in perceived school belonging. It may be that the negative longer term trajectory for grade-level achievement for retainees in Years 2-4 ( Wu et al., 2008a) accounts for this negative effect. That is, children's success in meeting class room academic expectations may affect their social standing ( Gleason et al., 2007). Another possible explanation for these findings is that with increasing age, the label of "retainee" accrues negative, stigmatizing connotations. The evidence for such a developmental shift is indirect. When children in Grades 1 through 6 were asked to rate the stressfulness of numerous events, older children perceived being retained in grade as more stressful than did students in younger grades ( Yamamoto & Byrnes, 1987). In Texas, the state in which the current study was conducted, third grade is the first year that students are required to pass a test of grade-level academic competencies in order to be promoted to the next grade. Thus, increased student awareness and apprehension about grade retention may contribute to the negative longer term effect of retention on peer acceptance and perceived school be longing. Additionally, over time, retained children, who are over age for their grade, may begin to disassociate from their grade peers and affiliate more with their same-age rather than same grade peers, which could negatively impact their social acceptance in the classroom.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

We matched retained and promoted children on the basis of their propensity scores estimated with a comprehensive set of back ground variables. This method substantially reduced selection bias and strengthened causal inference about the effect of grade retention in our nonrandomized study. Our analyses showed that we were able to achieve good balance between groups by matching Additional analyses including less balanced background variables as covariates did not substantially alter the results. Retention also had no effect on the initial status (intercept) for all of the outcomes, which further supports the success of the matching. We maximized statistical power by using an optimal matching procedure that maximized our sample size and made the greatest possible use of our available data ( Ming & Rosenbaum, 2000).

The primary limitations of the present study are associated with the collection of only four waves of data to date. The number of waves of data restricts the forms of growth that could be investigated. Limited to four waves of data collection, we could only fit a linear growth curve to represent the trajectory for short-term and long-term change. We were not able to examine possible nonlinear longer term growth trajectories (e.g., growth toward an asymptote) given that we had only three waves of postretention data. Consequently, we could not determine whether the trajectories we observed for some of our outcomes would continue or would attenuate over a longer period of time. In addition, the promoted children were only in fourth grade at the end of the study, before the transition to middle school and the beginning of adolescence. Many important changes in psychosocial outcome only arise at the point of school transitions, the change to a new developmental stage, or both ( Coie et al., 1993; Roeser & Eccles, 1998; Wigfield & Eccles, 1994). We are currently collecting additional waves of data that will permit examination of possible nonlinear trajectories resulting from grade retention.

Because the psychosocial variables that were the focus of this investigation are associated with sociocultural factors, such as gender, language, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity, it is important to consider how such variables might interact with retention. However, a full investigation of such effects is outside the scope of the current investigation.

A final limitation in our study concerned missing data in the outcome variables. Although we carefully tracked all participants and used procedures that help maintain high rates of participation (see Ribisl et al., 1996), some observations were missing and a few participants were lost to the study (e.g., moved to unknown location). We used full information maximum likelihood procedures to address missing data; these procedures provide proper adjustment of the results for all measured variables ( Schafer & Graham, 2002). However, if both the outcomes and missingness were related to unmeasured variables, then our estimates of the growth trajectories might have been biased, although they would nearly always be less biased than unadjusted estimates. No statistical test exists that allows us to test whether missingness is dependent on only measured variables (i.e., missing at random; Little & Rubin, 2002).

Summary and Conclusion

We found that retained children, relative to promoted children, benefited from retention in both the short and longer term with respect to decreased teacher-rated hyperactivity, peer-rated sadness and withdrawal, and increased teacher-rated behavioral engagement. Three years after retention, retained children reported higher academic competence than did matched promoted children. Our findings also point to possible trouble on the horizon. Particularly troubling are results that show a short-term increase in peer-rated liking for the retained students, followed by a rapid decrease after the repeat year, as well as a short-term increase in school belonging that dissipated by Year 3. The companion study by Wu et al. (2008a) showed short-term improvement in math and reading achievement during the repeat year, followed by a rapid decline relative to grade mates as the children encountered new material. Future research is needed to test whether this "struggle-succeed-struggle" sequence for academic and social outcomes has long-term negative consequences for the academic motivation and achievement of retained children. These negative trajectories, if maintained, may portend some of the negative effects of retention in grade that have been observed in well-controlled studies of the effects of grade retention that have followed children into adolescence (e.g., Alexander et al., 2003; Pagani et al., 2001).

The abilities to pay attention, inhibit motor activity, persist on tasks, and manage one's emotions are aspects of self-regulation that develop rapidly during this age period ( Blair, 2002; Kochanska et al., 1997). Retained students generally perform less well on measures of self-regulation ( Jimerson et al., 1997; Willson & Hughes, 2009). The additional year of maturation affords retained students the opportunity to "catch up" to their (younger) grade mates in behavioral and emotional adjustment. Furthermore, improvements in adjustment are maintained through Year 4. Conversely, the longer term results for variables that may be less a function of maturation (i.e., peer liking and school belonging) are less encouraging. The label of "retainee" may have a stigmatizing effect on peers and contribute to the fading of the short-term benefit of retention on children's sense of belonging to school.

The finding of different effects across time and across domains of adaptation is consistent with transactional models of development ( Lerner, 1998). Despite benefits through fourth grade, retention may create vulnerabilities that do not appear until the middle grades. For example, the struggle-succeed-struggle sequence in meeting grade-level academic competencies may contribute to the belief that one's academic outcomes are outside one's control, undermining academic motivation. Similarly, retention may bestow social advantages in the short term but have detrimental effects on social acceptance in the longer term, as students become more sensitive to being over-age for grade. Longitudinal studies that test such dynamic models of the effects of early grade retention hold promise for clarifying how retention affects long-term academic and social adaptation. Such an understanding is necessary to realize the benefits and avoid the costs of this educational intervention.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by Grant 5 R01 HD39367 to Jan N. Hughes from the National Institute of Child Health and Development.

Footnotes

¹ Very few students had the same teacher across years. Among the 375 participants in the study, only 13 students (3.5%) had the same teacher at Time 1 and 2 measurement waves, 5 students (1.3%) had the same teacher at Times 2 and 3, and 3 students (0.8%) had the same teacher at Times 3 and 4. None of the students had the same teacher over all 3 years.

² A complete list of the 72 variables collected at Wave 1 is available from Jan N. Hughes.

³ We tried both 1:up to 3 and 1:up to 5 matching with caliper distance = .05 and .025. We found that 1:up to 5 matching with caliper distance = .025 led to the smallest total within-match distance without much sacrifice of the number of matched cases compared with the other conditions. Thus 1:up to 5 matching with caliper distance = .025 was adopted in the study.

⁴Our many-to-one matching procedure led to overall good balance on 75 baseline variables. A series of 2 (retention) × 5 (quantile strata) ANOVAs for continuous variables and logistic regressions for dichotomous variables identified six significant effects at p < .05, whereas 7.5 would be expected by chance. The maximum effect size on the baseline measures (η ² = .047) was less than moderate in magnitude according to Cohen's (1988) guidelines. Significant baseline main effects or interactions involving retention were found on math raw achievement, ethnicity (White vs. non-White), parent-rated internalizing problems, percentage of White students in class, and family adversity among the 75 baseline measures. We conducted sensitivity analyses using (a) the five significant measures from the full set of 75 baseline measures and (b) the two significant measures from the set of 20 important baseline measures as covariates in the Level 2 model to adjust for baseline differences. The effects of retention after partialing out these sets of covariates did not differ materially from those without the covariates added.

⁵The variable d represents the effect size measure. According to Cohen (1988), d values of .20, .50, and .80 represent small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively.

⁶Difference = .05, with SD = .08.

Contributor Information

Wei Wu, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas.

Stephen G. West, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University.

Jan N. Hughes, Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University.

References

Gootman E. One in 3 city 4th graders may not advance to 5th. The New York Times. 2005 March 19;:B5. [Google Scholar]

Harter S, Pike R. The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver; 1981. [[PubMed] Google Scholar]

West SG, Thoemmes F. Campbell's and Rubin's perspectives on causal inference. Psychological Methods (in press) [[PubMed] Google Scholar]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effect of Grade Retention in First Grade on Psychosocial Outcomes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 May 5. Published in final edited form as: In a 4-year longitudinal study, the authors investigated effects of retention in first grade on children's externalizing and internalizing behaviors; social acceptance; and behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement.

# data[].attributes.body
This article looks at how the pandemic affected many children's relationship with schooling and how it was a difficult time to learn. It was a difficult for teachers who were limited on the content they could teach in 2020 and 2021 and the skills children could acquire, as well as increased chronic absenteeism for at-risk kids. Grade retention may be proposed as a solution for the students who are considered behind after those challenging times, but that could lead to worse outcomes. Grade retention is not a practical or economical way to help failing children, and it may end up doing more long-term harm to both the districts and the students themselves. While there may be some short-term benefits to grade retention like a positive impact on one's self-concept, grade retention is linked to even more absences, even potentially dropping out, behavioral issues, and less acceptance among peers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way school districts reach, educate, evaluate, and support students. Remote schooling provided opportunities for reflection and revaluation of curriculum, but also limited the content teachers were able to deliver in 2020 and 2021 and the skills students were able to develop, and increased chronic absenteeism for at risk students (Southall et al., 2021). In the past, grade retention, or repetition, has been a common way for school districts to address low achievement and high absenteeism.

As parents, schools, and districts assess student learning progress at the end of the 2020-21 school year, some stakeholders may propose grade retention as a mechanism to support students. As this brief will explain, the research is clear that grade retention has no long-term benefits for student achievement or long-term outcomes and may in fact have negative consequences for both students and districts. While there is some evidence of short-term positive effects, these are to be expected as students are completing work they have already been exposed to. As students move into later grades, these effects disappear, indicating that while students may improve on work they have already completed, grade retention does not provide a scaffold for learning new skills or approaching new challenges in future grades.

Grade retention is not an educationally advantageous or cost effective solution for supporting struggling students, and may in fact cause more harm in the long run both to individual students and to their districts.

While the specific conditions of remote learning during a global pandemic are unprecedented, the retention of students for low achievement and high absenteeism is not. Here, we review existing literature on two forms of grade retention: involuntary, otherwise known as "holding students back," and voluntary, often referred to as "redshirting." We conclude that grade retention is not an educationally advantageous or cost effective solution for supporting struggling students, and may in fact cause more harm in the long run both to individual students and to their districts. In lieu of grade retention, we recommend using district funds towards research-supported interventions for students such as tutoring programs, increased socio-emotional support, culturally-responsive pedagogy, and teacher training on differentiation and effective use of data to support student growth.

Involuntary Grade Retention - Impact on Retained Students

Most research on grade retention examines the involuntary form of the practice, often labeled as "leaving a student behind." There are a number of potential reasons why a school may recommend or require a student be retained, including low exam scores, attendance, or other performance metrics. In general, students who are retained repeat their current grade the following year as their classmates move on to the next grade. As this unique school year comes to a close, schools and districts will need to examine the best solution for a potentially increased number of students labeled as "underperforming."

The research on the efficacy of grade retention suggests that it is not a particularly effective intervention, although there is evidence of some short-term gains. For example, a number of studies find students typically improve during the year they repeat (Frey, 2005). Other research suggests positive impacts on self-concept as well (Lamote et al., 2014). This may be expected, however, given that the content the students are receiving is similar if not identical to the year prior; these gains may simply be limited to the "head start" repeating students have in comparison to peers learning content for the first time.

When examining results beyond the repeated year, research suggests that any gains experienced by retaining students fade away, if not outright switch to a negative impact. Both Jimmerson et al. (1997) and Karweit (1999), for example, find that short-term positive effects are not sustained, and within a few years retained students see no benefit from the intervention. Further, other work finds negative long-term impacts on student achievement; Lamote et al. (2014) finds little short-term impact, but a strong decline in language achievement for students who were retained in eighth grade when examining students' performance later in high school.

There are other serious potential negative academic implications of grade retention as well, particularly when considering the potential impact on high school dropout rates. Jacob and Lefgren (2007), for example, find that retention among low-achieving eighth-grade students increases the likelihood that these students will drop out of high school. Similarly, Hughes et al. (2018) finds that students who were retained in grades 1-5 are also more likely to drop out of high school, with effects strongest for Hispanic and African American girls, even though academic achievement was not significantly lower for these students.

One study found that grade retention is associated with increased absences, behavioral difficulties, and lower peer acceptance.

Other, non-academic negative effects are associated with grade retention as well. Jimerson (1997) finds that grade retention is associated with increased absences, behavioral difficulties, and lower peer acceptance when compared to a similarly performing control group who were not retained. A follow-up study (Jimerson, 1999) also found retained students had notably lower employment and postsecondary outcomes, including lower wages and less likelihood to be enrolled in college.

In sum, the research is clear that retaining students is not associated with positive outcomes and may lead to negative academic and non-academic outcomes in the long run. The salient question, then, is what might be an alternative? A typical response might be "social promotion" or automatic promotion, in which a student is moved on to the next grade despite not mastering the content of the prior year. While popular in the past, additional attention paid to benchmarking and competency as far back as 1983's A Nation at Risk has led to significant arguments against the practice (Frey, 2005). Still, research suggests that socially promoted students may actually outperform their retained peers, despite not receiving any additional interventions (Holmes & Matthews, 1984). It may be helpful, then, to consider involuntary grade retention and social promotion as two of a number of options; other interventions could buoy struggling students as they move from grade to grade, which we examine in the concluding section of this brief.

Voluntary and Involuntary Grade Retention - Impact on "Redshirted" Students

A second implementation of grade retention occurs when parents or caregivers, rather than teachers, request that a student be "held back." Generally, voluntary grade retention happens either when parents or caregivers request that their child repeat a year, or (much more commonly) when they wait to enroll their child in school for the first time, a practice typically called "redshirting." Research on this type of grade retention is far less prevalent, especially when considering impacts for older students as the practice is comparatively uncommon. Still, there are lessons we can learn from redshirting that may help guide decisions for districts, schools, and parents.

The research is not nearly as clear in comparison to existing work on involuntary grade retention, and there are a small handful of studies that uncover short-term benefits. For example, Datar (2006) finds that within the first two years of schooling, students who enter Kindergarten at an older age relative to their same-grade peers do have higher test scores, especially for students who are labeled as at-risk, and other work finds that older students outperform younger students more generally, including through high school (Bedard & Duhey, 2006).

Despite the studies cited above, more substantial and broad evidence suggests that redshirting has no long-term benefit to the students who are retained (Huang, 2015). For example, Lincove and Painter (2006) find that while students entering Kindergarten at a younger age than their same-grade peers are more likely to repeat a grade later on, they are actually less likely to see any negative effects of retention. Moreover, they are more likely to attend college, earn higher wages, and even achieve higher test scores in high school when compared to students who were redshirted. Additionally, a variety of studies (see Huang, 2015 for a summary) have found redshirted students are more likely to be placed in a special education program, have higher prevalence of behavioral issues, and are more likely to be disengaged. Finally, boys' increased likelihood to redshirt can at least partially explain the boy-girl gender gap in high school and college completion (Deming & Dynarski, 2006).

Impacts on Larger Community

While the impacts of both voluntary and involuntary grade retention are certainly felt by individual students, it is also important to note the impact both practices have on the larger schooling community. First, districts do not generally budget for students to be involuntarily retained, meaning that an individual student being asked to repeat a grade will cost a district anywhere from $13,000 to $35,000, depending on the district (CT School Finance, 2021). These funds could otherwise be spent on other, more useful interventions.

An individual student being asked to repeat a grade will cost a district anywhere from $13,000 to $35,000, depending on the district.

While pre-Kindergarten redshirting doesn't typically have the same costs associated with later grade retention (parents are still typically paying for some version of pre-school instead), there are other, non-financial costs associated with the practice, specifically when considering equity. Given the increased cost of redshirting placed on parents, it is perhaps unsurprising that caregivers with high socioeconomic status are more likely to use this practice, and academically redshirted students are more likely to be White than their non-redshirted peers, even as poorer families are more likely to be concerned about their child's readiness for Kindergarten (Bassok & Reardon, 2013). As a result, the practice may actually exacerbate existing achievement gaps, in the short term, between White and BIPOC students (Lenard & Pena, 2018).

Alternatives to Grade Retention

The evidence is clear: grade retention is not an effective or fiscally prudent intervention for students performing below grade level, nor can it be recommended as an elective practice for younger students. However, some stakeholders may suggest this option because they experienced the potential shortterm positive effects discussed above as students, as parents, or as teachers. It is imperative that districts acknowledge these effects and then engage in research-oriented dialogue about the short and long-term costs and negative effects of grade retention and offer other interventions to families and schools to support struggling students. Of course, automatically promoting students to the next grade despite poor performance or attendance does not mean that a district's responsibilities and opportunities for support and intervention end. Rather, funds that might have been used in retaining students could be used to provide interventions that are proven to improve student outcomes.

One such intervention could be a "high-dosage" tutoring program, an intervention supported by significant research (Kraft & Goldstein, 2020), in which individual tutors work with students throughout the year to support academic growth. Another potential intervention involves "wraparound" services in which schools use comprehensive support models to address out-of-school factors that may be inhibiting learning; these services have been demonstrated to improve not only learning outcomes but also socio-emotional development (Bowden & Wasser Gish, 2021). There is also evidence that providing additional socio-emotional support and family engagement through strengthened guidance programs (Lapan et al., 2007), community events and partnerships (Sheldon, 2003), and culturally-responsive pedagogy are each helpful for improving student outcomes (Dee & Penner, 2017). Lastly, any intervention must come with in-depth and sustained teacher training (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009), providing teachers with the skills and dispositions necessary for individualizing and differentiating instruction for students. This includes developing more robust and nuanced skills around student data collection and assessment that inspires changes to curriculum and pedagogy (Filderman et al., 2020). These suggestions are not new, and may already be part of many school district improvement plans for Alliance Districts in Connecticut. However, in conversations about supporting students during and after the COVID-19 crisis these efforts should be redoubled, especially if grade retention is suggested by parents, teachers, or school administrators. Resources are limited and precious for school districts, and thus using them on research-based interventions and not on grade retention is vital to serving students equitably and responsibly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grade Retention After COVID-19: Evidence-Based Guidance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Samuel J. Kamin and Alexandra J. Lamb, Neag School doctoral candidates in the Department of Educational Leadership, prepared the following rapid research br ...