• by Albert Cortez, Ph.D., and Josie D. Cortez, M.A. • IDRA Newsletter • January 2005

Josie CortezDr. Albert CortezIn November 2004, the Texas Education Agency released its annual report on in-grade retention practices in Texas. A part of a continuing series, this latest report provides summary data on in-grade retention levels in Texas for the 2002-03 school year.

The report includes overall in-grade retention rates for the state as a whole, as well as state-level retention numbers broken out by grade levels (kindergarten through grade 10). The document also presents in-grade retention data by ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, language proficiency status, special education and program categories (including career and technology, gifted and talented, and Title I).

The document includes Texas statutory policies related to in-grade retention and the state’s related “Student Success Initiative.” Also examined are retention and Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAKS) passing rates, and student performance comparing retained and promoted students for grade levels three through 10. The final segment provides district-by-district summary of retention rates.

In-Grade Retention Rises

According to this latest TEA report, school districts in Texas collectively retained 184,214 pupils in grades kindergarten through 12. Using a state average cost per student of $5,000 per pupil, this translates to an add-on expense of almost $1 billion ($921 million) to provide an extra year of instruction to students who were retained.

Retention is expensive. An IDRA study shows, “It is more cost effective to increase educational resources to improve student performance and eliminate the need for retention,” (McCollum, et al., 1999).

Extensive research has proven that in-grade retention is an ineffective and in many cases a dysfunctional response to student achievement. As reported in IDRA’s Failing Our Children – Finding Alternatives to In-Grade Retention (Cortez et al., 1999), studies from as early as 1930 have reported the negative effects of retention on academic achievement (Ayer, 1933; Kline, 1933).

A meta-analysis of 63 studies on retention found that students retained in grade do not benefit academically or socially (Holmes, 1989; Foster, 1993). In fact, retention is strongly correlated with dropping out of school (Grissom and Shepard, 1989; Roderick, 1995). Students retained for a second time are almost certain to drop out of school (Setenich, 1994).

Between 1990 and 1997, 66 studies were conducted on retention with 65 reporting retention was ineffective or harmful to students. Fifty percent of students who repeat a grade do no better the second time, and 25 percent actually do worse the second time (McCollum, et al., 1999).

Despite such incontrovertible evidence, some state policy leaders and educators continue to insist that students be retained, thus holding them accountable for academic performance, irrespective of the causes, which often include inadequate or inappropriate instruction.

Dr. José A. Cárdenas, IDRA founder and director emeritus, summarizes: “The retention of students is consistent with a student deficit model. It is assumed that the student has total control over the learning situation, and the failure to learn is attributed to student negligence or unwillingness to do so,” (1995).

According to the state’s data, the 184,214 students retained constituted 4.7 percent of the state’s kindergarten through grade 12 enrollment. Analysis of the data however, reveals that in-grade retention is not evenly distributed across grade levels or across the state’s major ethnic groups.

As noted by the agency “across grade levels K-6, the retention rate was much higher in first grade than any other grade” where the 17,299 first-graders retained accounted for roughly 56.3 percent of all kindergarten through sixth grade retainees. By comparison, only 1 percent of all fifth-grade students, 1.4 percent of all sixth-grade students, and 1.5 percent of all fourth-grade students were retained in Texas schools.

Though the latter is somewhat encouraging, a review of trend data, presented in the graph and table below indicates that for all but grade six, the number and percent of students retained in grade in Texas has been increasing since 1995. The number of retainees in grades kindergarten through six increased from 38,500 in 1994-95 to 68,852 in 2002-03. This is a net increase of 25,352 or approximately 65 percent over an eight-year span.

Secondary level (grades seven through 12 see table below) in-grade retention rates reflected notably higher rates than those found in most elementary grade levels, with the exception of first grade. According to TEA’s data, ninth grade remains the grade level with the highest number and percentage of in-grade retentions where 57,197 or 16.4 percent of ninth grade students were held back. While seventh- and eighth-grade retentions hover at 2 percent, grade 10 retentions have risen to 8.8 percent; retentions in grades 11 and 12 persisted around the 5.6 to 4.7 range.

The overall 6.9 percent retention rate for grades seven through 12 is almost two and one half times greater than the 2.9 percent in-grade retention rate reported for grades kindergarten through six. Collectively, more than 120,000 students enrolled in secondary schools were retained in 2002-03.

This high number of retentions should be cause for great concern, especially since dropout research has noted that in-grade retention is one of the best predictors for students not remaining enrolled in school until graduation.

Retention by Race-Ethnicity

Summary data broken down by racial-ethnic groups continues to reflect that African American students and Hispanic students in Texas are retained at rates that are substantially greater than White students. According to the 2002-03 retention report 102,416 (55.6 percent) of the 184,214 students retained in grade were Hispanic; 33,681 (18.9 percent) were African American and 45,482 (24.7 percent) were White.

When calculated as a percent of the racial ethnic group total enrollment, 6.1 percent of Hispanic students, 6.0 percent of African American students, and only 2.8 percent of White students were retained in grade.

Retention by Income Level

The report also notes that 104,666 or 5.8 percent of the state’s 1,851343 students are disadvantaged. Looking at the same number as a percentage of all retainees however reveals that low-income students constituted 55.6 percent of all Texas in-grade retentions.

Other Alarming Comparisons

Data provided for the 2002-03 report only allows for comparison of kindergarten through grade 12 retentions from 1998-99 to 2002-03 and reveals that the number of retentions increased from 170,534 in grades K-12 in 1998-99 to 184,214 in 2002-03. This is a net increase of 13,680 students or approximately 8 percent over a four-year period.

Review of earlier TEA retention reports, however, reflects that the increase in retentions is even higher when compared to 1991-92 rates. According to the October 1992 TEA retention report, in that year, only 118,886 out of an enrollment of 3,136,093 (3.7 percent) students were retained in grades kindergarten through 12. Comparing the 184,214 retentions in 2003 with the 118,886 retentions reported in 1992 indicates that retention rates increased by 65,328 students, all in areas where Texas was proclaiming great strides in improving student achievement. These data suggest that not all students were equal beneficiaries from Texas reform efforts.

Comparisons of retention rates by gender reveal that males are retained at greater rates than females at all levels. The most notable difference is in grade nine where male retention percentages are approximately six points higher than that of females.
The retention data also indicate that special education students are retained at slightly higher rates than the overall population. The greatest increase in retention rates for special education students is seen at the ninth-grade level with a retention rate comparable to that noted for all ninth-grade students.

Limitations of the Study

A new analysis incorporated into the 2002-03 retention report tracked the performance of retained students in subsequent years’ state assessments. Although the report noted that many prior-year retainees (who had not met passing standards in the year in which they were retained) met state passing standards in their second year at the same grade level in elementary grades, it also stated that the gap in achievement between those students who were retained and those promoted did not decrease.
Retained students in grades six through 10 did not reflect notable improvement in mathematics scale scores, even after repeating the same math content for a second year.

A caveat in the above analysis is the observation that all promoted students’ scores were compared to retained students, thereby tending to increase the scale scores that served as a comparison standard (those promoted). A more insightful comparison would involve contrasting promoted students who scored slightly above the passing standard with those who were retained. Analyses of these data might indicate how more similar students may have been impacted by retention versus promotion.

Alternatives to In-Grade Retention

While the 82-page report provides useful data on the number of retained students by an array of demographics, it does not provide any support that students retained in grade benefit from the mere practice of repeating the same content for a second year.

Some would argue that the retention provides students an opportunity to acquire specialized support in the repeat year; however, researchers have noted that such specialized support could be provided to students who were promoted with the condition that additional support would be provided in the next grade level.

Other alternatives to retention include:

  • Enhancing the professional development of teachers to ensure they have the knowledge and skills to teach a wider range of students to meet standards;
  • Using classroom assessment that better informs teaching;
  • Identifying as early as possible students who are not achieving at satisfactory levels;
  • Establishing a goal for reducing the number of retentions in grade in Texas schools; and
  • Re-designing school structures to support more intensive learning, such as multi-age classes where teachers stay with students for more than one year.

Retention policies may make some adults feel better to hold children accountable, but for the students directly impacted, it means the loss of an entire year and an increased probability that they will not graduate from high school.

As educators, taxpayers and parents we should challenge the state to do more than count the minds and bodies that are subjected to an outdated and dysfunctional policy. We should demand real alternatives that work.

alt

In-Grade Retention in Texas, by Elementary Grade Levels

?

Kindergarten Retentions

First Grade Retentions
Second Grade Retentions
Third Grade Retentions
Fourth Grade Retentions
Fifth Grade Retentions
Sixth Grade Retentions
?
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

3,726

4,524

5,081

6,070

6,996

7,941

9,110

9,698

11,049

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.2

2.5

2.8

3.2

3.4

3.6

15,998

17,299

16,777

17,763

19,693

19,505

19,529

20,094

20,180

5.8

5.9

5.6

6

6.5

6.3

6.3

6.4

6.3

5,958

7,225

7,222

8,938

9,460

9,852

11,001

11,066

11,184

2.2

2.6

2.5

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.6

3.6

3.6

3,453

4,251

4,400

5,373

7,129

6,862

7,659

7,636

8,924

1.3

1.5

1.6

1.9

2.4

2.3

2.5

2.4

2.8

2,582

2,952

3,030

3,546

3,881

4,014

4,405

4,043

4,843

1

1.1

1.1

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.3

1.5

2,223

2,335

2,272

2,587

2,502

2,938

2,789

2,591

3,109

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.9

0.9

1

0.9

0.8

1

4,561

4,821

4,592

4,808

4,762

4,906

4,824

4,414

4,563

1.7

1.7

1.6

1.7

1.6

1.7

1.6

1.4

1.4

Source: Texas Education Agency, 2004

?

In-Grade Retention in Texas, by Secondary Grade Levels

?
Seventh Grade Retentions
EighthGrade Retentions
Ninth Grade Retentions
10th Grade Retentions
11th Grade Retentions
12th Grade Retentions
?
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

8,642

8,513

7,762

6,959

7,489

3

2.9

2.5

2.2

2.3

6,533

6,169

6,353

5,642

5,926

2.3

2.1

2.1

1.9

1.9

59,738

58,451

58,363

57,761

57,197

18.8

17.7

17.4

16.9

16.4

19,552

19,923

21,754

22,726

24,751

7.8

7.9

8.1

8.2

8.8

12,063

12,806

13,440

13,763

13,643

5.6

5.8

5.9

5.8

5.6

9,583

9,631

10,411

10,677

11,356

4.6

4.5

4.7

4.6

4.7

Source: Texas Education Agency, 2004

?

Grade Retention by Racial and Ethnic Group in Texas

?
2001-02
2002-03
?
All
Students
Number
Retained
Percent Retained
As
Percentage
of All Retained
Percent
of Enrollment
All
Students
Number
Retained
Percent Retained
As
Percentage
of All Retained
Percent of Enrollment
African American
550,804
33,070
6.0%
18.60%
14.20%
555,949
33,681
6.0%
18.30%
14.10%
Asian/
Pacific
Islander
108,008
2,191
2.0%
6.60%
2.80%
113,253
2,097
1.90%
1.10%
2.90%
Hispanic
1,591,414
96,665
6.10%
54.50%
41.10%
1,668,099
102,416
6.10%
55.60%
42.20%
Native American
11,483
550
4.80%
0.30%
0.30%
12,085
538
4.50%
0.03%
0.03%
White
1,609,096
44,864
2.80%
25.30%
41.60%
1,601,578
45,482
2.80%
24.70%
4.0.5%
Total

Resources

Ayer, F.C. Progress of Pupils in the State of Texas 1923-1933 (Austin, Texas: Texas State Teachers Association, 1933).

Cárdenas, J.A. Multicultural Education: A Generation of Advocacy (Needham Heights, Mass.: Simon and Schuster Custom Publishing, 1995).

Foster, J. “Review of Research: Retaining Children in Grade,” Childhood Education (1993) 70:38-43.

Grissom, K.B., and L.A. Shepard. “Repeating and Dropping Out of School.” In L.A. Shepard and M.L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on Retention (Philadelphia, Penn.: The Falmer Press, 1989), 34-63.

Holmes, C.T. “Grade-Level Retention Effects: A Meta-Analysis of Research Studies.” In L.A. Shepard and M.L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on Retention (Philadelphia, Penn.: The Falmer Press, 1989).

Kline, E. “Significant Changes in the Curve of Elimination Since 1900,” Journal of Educational Research (1933) 26, 608-616.

McCollum, P., and A. Cortez, O. Maroney, F. Montes. Failing Our Children –Finding Alternatives to In-Grade Retention. (San Antonio, Texas: Intercultural Development Research Association, 1999).

Roderick, M. “Grade Retention and School Dropouts: Policy Debate and Research Questions,” Phi Delta Kappan Research Bulletin (December 1995) 15, 1-6.

Setenich, J. “The Impact of Early Grade Retention on the Academic Achievement and Self-Esteem of Seventh and Eighth Grade Students,” Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists (Seattle, Wash.: March 1-5, 1994).


Albert Cortez, Ph.D., is the director of the IDRA Institute for Policy and Leadership. Josie Danini Cortez, M.A., is the IDRA design and development coordinator. Comments and questions may be directed to them via e-mail at feedback@idra.org.


[©2005, IDRA. This article originally appeared in the January 2005 IDRA Newsletter by the Intercultural Development Research Association. Permission to reproduce this article is granted provided the article is reprinted in its entirety and proper credit is given to IDRA and the author.]

Share