|
Educators are charged with the responsibility of meeting the
needs of all young children chronologically eligible for school.
However, not all children enter school with the same skills or
maturity to perform with equal success in the classroom. Two
strategies used by schools to deal with “inadequate”
performance or readiness of children are retention and transition
placement.
Retention refers to the practice of repeating
a grade in school. Children retained in kindergarten attend
kindergarten twice, rather than being promoted to first grade
with their peers. Advocates of retention believe this practice
allows children to “catch up” with higher achieving
peers by providing them with an extra year to mature and gain
extra skills.
Transition placement usually refers to a
pre-first grade experience, although the term has been used for
any placement other than retention that adds an extra year to a
child's normal school progression. This can include a
developmental kindergarten, either prior to or following a
child's regular kindergarten year. Advocates of transition
placements have used this strategy to escape the potentially
negative impact of retention.
Retention Research
Research about retention reveals that —
- For most children retention has a
negative impact on measures of social adjustment,
behavior, self-competence, and attitudes toward school
(e.g., Holmes & Matthews, 1984; Meisels & Liaw, 1993).
- Children themselves rate the
possibility of retention as extremely stressful.
In one study, only going blind or losing a parent were rated by
children as more stressful than the possibility of retention
(Yamamoto, 1980).
- Retention is unsuccessful
in remediating academic difficulties. Children who are
retained continue to perform lower on measures of reading and
math than their peers (e.g., Holmes, 1983; Meisels & Liaw,
1993).
- Retention places children
at risk of dropping out of school (Grissom &
Shepard, 1989). Children who have been retained once are five
times less likely to graduate high school. There is nearly a 100%
probability that children will drop out when they have been
retained two or more times (Shepard & Smith, 1990).
Transition Research
Research on transition programs shows that —
- Transition placements are ineffective
in remediating academic difficulties whether the
transition program occurs prior to regular kindergarten or
between kindergarten and first grade (Carlson, 1995; Pipitone,
1986). Other research (Prohaska, 1991) reported no significant
differences on standardized test scores between children who had
been retained in kindergarten and similar children who had been
promoted with their peers.
- Transition programs have a negative
impact on curriculum. (e.g., Phillips, 1992; Golant
& Golant, 1990). Ostrowski (1994) found that transition
programming escalated curricular demands and required children
who were unable to meet these demands to spend an extra year in
school.
Retention and Transition Alternatives
Alternatives to retention and transition include —
- Mixed-age classes
that allow children to progress at their own pace.
- A curriculum that is both
age and individually appropriate for each child.
- All day kindergarten
that is developmentally and individually appropriate and that
provides children additional time in school without adding an
extra year to normal school progression.
- Individualized
instruction that is tailored to meet the needs of
individual children.
- Parent/caregiver
assistance programs that not only involve children's
caregivers and families with schools, but also provide assistance
in helping children with homework and study habits.
- Recognizing and valuing
differences among children, rather than striving
for homogeneity in classroom placements.
- Using tests appropriately
to design and evaluate curriculum that meets the needs of
each child, rather than to make placement decisions which involve
removing children from the regular classroom.
- Reducing class size
to allow for increased individual instruction.
All children, regardless of skill level, achievement, culture,
social class, or background, deserve the right to be educated
with peers and to follow normal school progression. Schools must
begin concentrating on meeting children's needs in the classroom,
rather than penalizing children with ineffective programming that
removes them from higher-achieving and more socially mature peers
and that adds an additional year to their normal school
progression.
References
Carlson, L. (1995).
Relationship between entry and exit kindergarten measures,
parent/child attitude, and fourth and fifth grade measures of
reading and math achievement. Published Dissertation, University
of Minnesota: Mpls., MN.
Golant, S. & Golant, M.
(1990). Kindergarten: It isn't what it used to be: Getting
your child ready for the positive experience of education. Los
Angeles: Lowell House.
Grissom J. & Shepard, L.
(1989). Repeating and dropping out of school. In L. Shepard and
M. Smith (Eds.). Flunking Grades: Research and policies on
Retention, London: The Palmer Press.
Holmes, C. (1983). The fourth
r: Retention. Journal of Research and Development in
Education. 17(1), 1-6.
Holmes, C & Matthews, K.
(1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high
school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 54(2).
Meisels, S. & Liaw, F.
(1993). Failure in grade: Do retained students catch up? Journal
of Educational Research. 87(2), 69-77.
Ostrowski, P. (1994).
Transition classes: Alternative learning environments that
perpetuate in appropriate curriculum in surrounding grades. ED
370 190.
Phillips, N. (1992). Two-tiered
kindergartens: Effective for at risk five year olds? Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 205-224.
Pipitone, S. (1986).
Longitudinal study of the developmental kindergarten programs in
the Glen Cove City School District. ED 276 500.
Prohaska, L. (1991). Effects of
two-year kindergarten programs at the end of third grade. ED 340
463.
Shepard, L. & Smith, M.
(1990). Synthesis of research on grade retention. Educational
Leadership, 44(3), 4-88.
Yamamoto, K. (1980). Children
under stress: The causes and cures. Family Weekly: Ogden
Standard Examiner, 6-8. In L. Shepard & M. Smith, (299).
Synthesis of research on grade retention. Educational
Leadership, 47(8), 84-88.
This issue of FACT FIND was written by:
LaVonne Carlson, Ph.D.
Institute of Child Development and Department of Educational
Psychology, College of Education and Human Development,
University of Minnesota
Lynn Galle, MA
Institute of Child Development, College of Education and Human
Development, University of Minnesota
|
|
Fact Find is published by the Center for
Early Education and Development (CEED), University
of Minnesota, 1954 Buford Avenue,
Suite 425, St. Paul, MN, 55108
ceed@umn.edu (email)
http://cehd.umn.edu/ceed (Web)
CEED provides information
regarding young children (birth to age eight), including children
with special needs, in the areas of education, child care, child
development, and family education. CEED activities include
research, training, and publications geared toward improving
professional practices, supporting parents, and informing policy
development.
The University of
Minnesota is an equal opportunity employer and educator. The
College of Education and Human Development is committed to
recruiting, enrolling, and education a diverse population of
students who represent the overall composition of our society.
This publication is available in alternate formats upon request.
Copyright © 2004 by Center for Early
Education and Development
These materials may be freely reproduced
for education/training or related activities. There is no requirement to obtain
special permission for such uses. We do, however, ask that the following
citation appear on all reproductions:
Reprinted with permission of the
Center for Early Education and Development (CEED), College of Education and
Human Development, University of Minnesota,
1954 Buford Avenue, Suite 425, St. Paul, MN,
55108; phone: 612-625-2898; fax:
612-625-6619; e-mail: ceed@umn.edu, web site:
http://cehd.umn.edu/ceed.
|
2000 issue