This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
September/October 2004

Retention: A last resort

by Bradley W. Rasch

Bradley Rasch of Roselle is a school psychologist in Round Lake Area SD 116 and a former school board member in Roselle SD 12.

In an attempt to be accountable, and to combat charges from the media that school systems in the United States are inferior to their European and Asian counterparts, the philosophy of retention has gained renewed popularity in this country. Apparently, we're trying to demonstrate to the world how "tough" our standards are.

Let any poor students "slip through the cracks?" Never! If the boys and girls don't get it right the first time, then we'll have them do it over again! Our standards are just as good as anybody's, and we won't compromise the system!

Great. This sounds accountable enough. You can't get much tougher than that.

But, lamentably, "tough" is only good if it yields results.

Sufficient research shows there are many pitfalls connected with retaining a student at a particular grade level, yet this research is often ignored by or is unknown to school districts wishing to "tighten up" promotion policies. This research lends itself to several questions:

• What does the retained student think of his or her self worth?
• What difference will repeating the material make if the student didn't understand it in the first place?
• What additional academic services, if any, will be available?

Adults have an advantage over young people: we have all been students and have many memories. Who among us cannot recall the teacher who directed us to re-do an assignment, only to discover ... usually at home at 8 p.m. ... that we hadn't the slightest idea how to "re-do" it.

The old adage "practice makes perfect" holds no water if we practice the same bad information over and over again. Do this and, guess what ... you'll never reach perfect. You will, however, become immensely proficient at, once again, doing something perfectly wrong.

In short, merely repeating a grade will not ensure that the student will do any better the second time. To assume so is to be overly simplistic and places the burden on the student, more than on the instructional staff, where it more rightfully belongs. Experienced educators know that any student being retained requires differentiated instructional strategies, as opposed to the same strategies repeated over and over again. If the same strategies were all that obvious, the retained student would have had no problem mastering the subject matter in the first place.

What is so complicated about this concept? If the child did not understand the material when initially exposed to it, what would make someone think that mere repetition will result in mastery of the material? Surprise ... it doesn't.

This also presents us with another question: Were varied instructional strategies tried when the student first showed signs of struggling with the material?

The key question educators should ask any time retention is suggested: Will this action correct the problem? "Probably" is not an acceptable answer. "Maybe" and "we're not sure" are even weaker responses.

In short, such answers sound more like the responses given by a gambler at a Las Vegas roulette wheel than responses one would expect from a professional educator. And yet, these answers may be the best we can provide, for to guarantee that retention will lead to improvement is to virtually guarantee the impossible.

There is something often referred to as the "science" of education. Still others speak of "skill development" as being of great importance. Indeed, the Illinois State Board of Education encourages teachers and principals to attend a variety of educational workshops in order to fine-tune their educational skills, so that they can help students fine-tune theirs.

Among the instructional skills held in highest regard are those enabling a teacher to approach the curriculum differently when dealing with a student who learns differently. As a matter of fact, "individualized instruction" has become the hallmark of the accomplished, veteran teacher.

"Individualized instruction" would seem to suggest that educators should have many approaches to use when they encounter children who are struggling with the curriculum. Sure, retention is one option. But, in my opinion, it should only be put into operation as a "last-ditch" effort.

Simply repeating a grade will not:

• ... help the slow learner. Repeating something in the same format as before will not raise the innate ability of a child and can never raise an IQ.
• ... magically create good study habits in a child who has poor ones. That child will wind up studying the same information using the same inadequate study skills that they used when they first encountered the information. They will become twice as frustrated as before and may end up performing even more poorly than the previous year.
• ... correct a poor home environment. Many students reside in homes that lack good parenting skills. Some children go home to households in which books are scarce and education is poorly emphasized. Still others may have only one parent, who may be forced to work long hours at several jobs and who cannot spend as much time helping their children as they wish.
• ... correct discipline problems. The true ability of a child with a discipline problem may never be established as long as the child in question is not under control. How will repeating a grade make such a child behave any better? Simple ... it won't. Likely as not, a child who is considered a discipline problem will get worse when faced with the stigma of retention.
• ... isolate the potential of specific special education problems that may have been previously undiagnosed. A child with a learning disability is not a candidate for retention.

What can be done?

In order to prevent excessive rates of retention, we need to identify students who are struggling early in the school year, preferably during the first six to eight weeks of school. Once problems are identified, we need to be totally frank with parents as to the additional help their child may need if they are to succeed during that school year. Such conversations are unpleasant and teachers, like everyone else, naturally prefer to avoid confrontations. This discussion, however, must take place anyway, in spite of the comfort levels of parents and the professional staff. Paramount to this conversation should be the introduction of new strategies to employ that could make retention unnecessary.

Such strategies may include, but are not limited to ...

• Applying individualized and divergent instructional methods to the struggling student. For example, some students respond better to auditory stimuli than they do to optical stimuli. Others may need to have greater access to the teacher during the course of the school day. Still others may need professional, one-on-one tutoring.
• Increasing on-going communication between the home and school. This may involve the writing of weekly progress reports to parents, or less commonly, daily academic checklists. Responsible parents (and most of them are) can then reinforce positive learning at home, once the adults have identified the child's main area(s) of weakness. In addition, seeing the "significant others" in their lives working as a team can work wonders in raising a student's spirits.
• Conducting a special education case-study evaluation in order to rule out even the slightest notion that the child's academic problems may be attributed to a learning disability or other related problems. Children needing special education services will often not respond well to any conventional alteration of learning strategies, but may be in need of special placement. We cannot afford to let another minute slip by due to a failure to consider such screening.

If the professional staff has even the slightest doubt that retention will work, then it should not be undertaken. Retention should be seen as a somewhat negative eventuality to be considered only after all else has failed. The "do over" mentality sweeping the nation will not guarantee success. Key to this is the realization that some students need major intervention strategies during the school year they're struggling in.

Retaining a student is simple and easy. Anybody can make the recommendation. Providing individualized instructional approaches is, admittedly, difficult and time-consuming, but accomplished teachers can deal with it.