Neither promotion nor retention significantly closed the achievement gap of low-achieving students close to the cutoff, and the lowest achievers deteriorated further¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2004 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Low-achieving students started school behind and fell further behind before the gate grade; the gap did not significantly close afterward for students near the cutoff. → Nagaoka 2004 q3 i? Very low-achieving retained sixth graders deteriorated in relative performance, averaging nearly one and one-quarter standard deviations below cohort reading achievement two years after retention, though no effect size for retention itself is printed. → Nagaoka 2004 (2)

Evidence¶

Nagaoka 2004¶

Nagaoka, J., & Roderick, M. (2004). Ending Social Promotion: The Effects of Retention. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/ending-social-promotion-effects-retention

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Cohort gap analysis from first grade to two years after the retention or promotion decision for three score groups shows low achievers started substantially behind and the gap widened most between first and third grade, before the policy took effect.

"Neither promotion nor retention led to a significant closing of this achievement gap after the gate grade for those low-achieving students who had test scores close to the cutoff."

Nagaoka 2004 (2)¶

Nagaoka, J., & Roderick, M. (2004). Ending Social Promotion: The Effects of Retention. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/ending-social-promotion-effects-retention

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Descriptive tracking of the very low-achieving group (most of whom were retained) shows deterioration in relative performance after retention, averaging "nearly one and one-quarter standard deviations below the average reading achievement of their cohort"; the report notes that without a comparison group the negative effect of retention cannot be isolated.

"Two years after retention, the average achievement of sixth graders in our very low-achieving group was nearly one and one-quarter standard deviations below the average reading achievement of their cohort."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Mid-year promotions after retention neither helped nor harmed students' tested achievement in basic skills — related
• Fewer than 60 percent of retained third and sixth graders in 1998 and 1999 raised their test scores to the promotional cutoff even with an extra January chance to pass — related
• Retained sixth graders had lower achievement growth than promoted low-achieving counterparts — related
• Retained students showed smaller three-year achievement gains than previously socially promoted students, though Rasch adjustment erased the gap for once-retained third graders — related
• Kindergarten test scores show patterns that can predict academic success or identify students at risk of falling further behind by third grade — related
• Kindergarten test scores from more than 400,000 U.S. students contain patterns that can predict academic success or identify students at risk of falling further behind by third grade — related
• Third-grade retention under the Chicago policy produced no sustained academic benefits or substantial negative effects — related
• The threat of retention produced statistically significant increases in 3rd-grade math and reading performance before the retention decision — related
• Retention under Mississippi's test-based promotion policy led to substantial and sustained 6th-grade ELA gains for retained students — related
• Chicago teachers did not use the readers' suggested study helps, and pupils did not refer to them — related