``Why do you think you are having trouble in school?`` the psychologist asked Rodney, a 4th-grade student of above-average intelligence.
``Because I`m dumb,`` he replied.
``Why do you think you`re dumb?`` asked the psychologist.
``Because I failed kindergarten,`` admitted Rodney.
Rodney`s self-esteem is still damaged from being retained in kindergarten. Chances of his completely recovering psychologically are slim indeed. The chances of Rodney`s becoming a dropout are far greater than if he had been promoted with his classmates.
Regardless of the label given to the process of repeating a grade in school or how carefully adults prepared the student, in the eyes of the child it is failure. It causes one of the most serious emotional traumas that a child can experience.
This scenario would be sad if it happened to this one child. It would be alarming if it happened to hundreds of thousands of children. It happens to more than 2 million youngsters each year. And the financial cost exceeds $10 billion annually.
Research on the subject of retention is quite clear. The practice of flunking children or holding them back a grade in school is educationally and psychologically unsound. Why, then, is retention an accepted fact in American schools?
Much has been written in the last decade criticizing the state of education in this country. The widely read 1983 report, ``A Nation At Risk,`` recommended that teachers base promotion on a student`s academic progress rather than adhering to an age standard. Tightening of educational standards seemed to be the way to improve American education. The Gallup Poll in 1990 revealed that two-thirds of those interviewed favored tougher promotional standards. The assumption is that stricter standards result in better student achievement. Retention has been offered as a simple solution to a complex problem.
Educators, too, continue the practice with good intentions. They assume that holding the child back a year will provide another year to mature, socially, academically and physically. The student will then have a better chance of success. Teachers observe the youngster the next year and note that there is more progress the second year, not knowing the long-range effect on non-promotion. Nor can they know what would have happened if the child had been promoted.
The commonly held belief by both parents and teachers is that retained students will benefit from the additional year of schooling. However, the child will probably be exposed to the same material and same educational methods that were unsuccessful the first time. According to noted researchers Lorrie A. Shepard and Mary Lee Smith, ``The evidence is quite clear and nearly unequivocal that the achievement and adjustment of retained children are no better-in most instances are worse-than those of comparable children who are promoted.``
A recent study of 16,412 students conducted by Samuel Meisels at the University of Michigan reports, ``Holding children back a grade doesn`t help their academic performance later-and may hurt them in other ways.`` Students who are being considered for retention and are promoted with their peers make progress equal to or greater than the progress made by their retained peers, Meisels found.
The National Association of Elementary School Principals passed a resolution in April of this year that opposed the practice of repeating grades. It stated that the group ``believes that such policies deprive the child of age-appropriate relationships, place the child at risk of dropping out of school and adversely affect the child`s self-concept and level of confidence.``
There is tremendous pressure on teachers to hold students accountable for grade-level standards. What should be done to replace the counterproductive practice of retaining students in grade? First, both parents and educators need to be aware of the research that clearly shows that more of the same doesn`t increase achievement. Second, we need to be aware that the increasing numbers of children who are culturally different may have different learning styles and require different teaching methods in order to attain success in school. Third, children who are at risk of failure need to be identified and educators must analyze the child`s social, emotional and academic weakness and strengths and design a program just as we do with handicapped children. Last, we need to make a wiser investment of the money that would have been spent on the additional year of schooling. It should be spent for better curricular materials, teacher in-service, enriched summer school programs, peer tutoring, parent education and more personalized instruction.
Both parents and educators must take a critical view of the practice of retention. It is not children who are failing schools but schools that are failing children.