Third-grade retention under the Chicago policy produced no sustained academic benefits or substantial negative effects¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Retained third graders showed at most a small boost the year after the retention decision with no substantial positive effects two years later, across three comparison methods. → Nagaoka 2004

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

Quasi-experimental comparisons of third graders just below versus just above the promotional cutoff in 1998 and 1999, plus a selection-model estimate, converge: a small one-year boost with no substantial effects two years after the retention decision.

"In all three cases, we reach similar conclusions, that retention did not proffer any sustained academic benefits to third graders who were retained nor did it have any substantial negative effects."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Mid-year promotions after retention neither helped nor harmed students' tested achievement in basic skills — related
• Retained sixth graders had lower achievement growth than promoted low-achieving counterparts — related
• Retention under Mississippi's test-based promotion policy led to substantial and sustained 6th-grade ELA gains for retained students — related
• The threat of retention produced statistically significant increases in 3rd-grade math and reading performance before the retention decision — 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
• Neither promotion nor retention significantly closed the achievement gap of low-achieving students close to the cutoff, and the lowest achievers deteriorated further — related
• Students who were promoted made larger achievement gains than students with the same propensity for retention who were retained, in almost all grades — related