Talk:Grade retention

General

The article says that in some locations, grade retention is only practiced from kindergarten through grade 12. Is that not all schooling (with the exception of pre-K and post-secondary)? Feel free to respond on my talk page. Hallpriest9 02:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. The debate is initiated and spoiled by sockpuppets of a banned user. The article and concepts do require a cleanup and better scope definition indeed; however, per WP:BAN, we don't act on behalf of banned users, and some of the discussion below was perhaps better deleted. Duja► 09:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Grade retention → Repeater (student) - It might be best to rename this article "Repeater (student)" rather than grade retention. In the UK, they do not call the educational years as a "grade". If we use the term repeater, people would know that it is a student who repeats a course. I also feel that Repeater (student) is better because it reflects students of all ages. Grade retention looks like it only talks about students in elementary and high school. Students of all ages do fail and sometimes they have to repeat. I feel that having the article called "Repeater (student) is the more general term. —Nitsirk 13:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The support votes by backwards given names below may be considered single-purpose accounts in this discussion, and there is also other evidence of canvassing. The discussion should be interpreted accordingly. Dekimasuよ! 11:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This poll was initiated (and stacked) by a (now blocked) sockpuppet of banned User:Jessica Liao who, through herself and her socks, has a long history of disruptive page moves. --Bradeos Graphon 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. "Repeater (student)" wouldn't make sense to an American or (I think) a Canadian. Actually, that title makes me think of a student who voluntarily chooses to take a class that was successfully passed before (to brush up on your math skills as an adult, for example). Furthermore, the article is more about the concept and the school policies, and less about individual students, so "Repeating (education)" might make more sense than "Repeater (student)". Dekimasu's merge idea is okay with me. I'd support a redirect for Nitsirk's proposed title. WhatamIdoing 17:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support I agree with everything the nominator says. It's appropriate because it reflects students of all ages unlike grade retention where it only reflects students in elementary school. --Yasdnil 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)This user is a suspected sockpuppet of banned User:Jessica Liao. Bradeos Graphon
• Support I think that "Repeater (student)" is the better title. It is not limiting. It is open to so much more. Don't you see that? Repeaters can be students of all ages. It's not just for elementary or high school. It's also for college and for any student that failed courses. If we keep the article to "grade retention", will that title cover students in college or even beyond? No, because grade retention only reflects students in elementary and secondary schools. "Grade" has always been talking about only in elementary and secondary schools. In college, they don't have grades there. It's just called freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior. --Refinnej 11:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)This user is a suspected sockpuppet of banned User:Jessica Liao. Bradeos Graphon
• Support Well if the correct term should abide from the title not another meaning. If Grade retention means students in elementary school, as to Repeater (student) goes by students of all ages. Then might as well make the change. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Nitsirk, please don't remove other people's comments from talk pages unless they are vandalism or unrelated to editing the article in question. I left my note here without an "oppose" or "support" tag because this is a discussion, not a vote, and I wanted to tread softly. I made it clear that I am in favor of a merge instead of the current proposal, but since you removed my comment for lacking "support" or "oppose", I suppose I'll write oppose. Dekimasuよ! 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is a vote. People vote and they have to give reasons why that is right. --Nitsirk 11:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)This user is a suspected sockpuppet of banned User:Jessica Liao. Bradeos Graphon
• Oppose. Both of these names are really confusing and don't fit the topic for me and probably many people. There is some appeal for using promotion (academic) but even that is not without a few warts. Repeating academic years may be the better choice but it is not a phase used over here as far as I know. Vegaswikian 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Why can't my friends support me? If they agree with me, they have every right to join! --Nitsirk 11:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• How about merging Social promotion and Grade retention to Promotion (academic)? It doesn't seem necessary to separate the two sides of the same topic. Dekimasuよ! 15:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• I favor a merge instead of the move suggested here, as noted below. Dekimasuよ! 14:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Promotion (academic) re-directs to Doctorate. Georgia guy 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice a Geobias tag on the article. With so little non-North American content, maybe a solution would be to leave the article where it is and move the non-North American content to a better location. Seems there should be enough differences that it wouldn't qualify as a content fork. — AjaxSmack 06:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And which location would that be? I think it would just be confusing to put it in a separate article. If they relate to the same topic I think it should be included with the US. I don't understand why we can't just change the title to Repeater (student). I think it's better because it's in the view of the student and how they look at it when they repeat. --Nitsirk 12:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article technically isn't about students who repeat years of school. If you look at the lead, it says, "Grade retention is the practice of...." Therefore we can conclude that the article is primarily about a practice or a policy, and not primarily about the person who is affected by this practice. Therefore I oppose the "Repeater" title, which I see as being akin to writing an article about driving a car, and then labeling it "Driver." I'd be more likely to support "Repeating (education)" than "Repeater (student)." WhatamIdoing 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Grade retention is "the practice of" must have a citation. There are no references stating that schools force children to repeat. Schools who want children to repeat grades obviously hate children. They have studied the development of children and still they think that children who fail should still repeat. This is sad because it means we truly live in a cruel world. Everyone knows that children are too young to deal with this stress. That's why we (the adults who do care) take care of children as best as we can. We understand that they are young and don't know better. So that's why we act as a positive role model to them so they know who to look up to. We protect them from the cruelness of the world. And yet we still can't because of the majority of the people who are so inconsiderate to children's needs. This is very sad. It's only the people who hate children. That's why they want them to repeat because they have no love for them. Honestly it would be breaking my heart if a third grader had to repeat the grade. It is sad that the teachers there have no feelings towards this. They just act innocent like repeating a grade is a good thing where deep inside they know it's bad for their development. I honestly don't know what is wrong with these people. These people are the ones who shouldn't be working with "our children". What I just said was an opinion. So don't get offended by what I say. --Nitsirk 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a sample of my introduction for if Repeater (student) is picked as the title: A repeater is a student who repeats a course, usually one previously failed. Schools for young children generally do not allow students to repeat as part of their policy because they feel that children cannot handle the stress. However, there are some schools that have a strict policy that children must repeat. For these exceptional children, they may feel even worst than when older students repeat due to their emotional immaturity. It is more common for students to repeat as they get older because of their emotional maturity. Schools for older students are more flexible about determining which level of students take which classes. For example, high school and college allows student to repeat. Repeaters commonly report feeling sad and as a result lower their self-esteem. On a positive note, they feel that it has given them a second chance to succeed.

How's that? --Nitsirk 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:WhatamIdoing that titling the article for the person rather than the practice is limiting. And, no, I don't know an appropriate location for a move of the non-North American content. It was just an idea to stimulate discussion. Also consider User:Dekimasu's idea of a merger of Social promotion and Grade retention mentioned above. — AjaxSmack 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not limiting. Did you read my intro? I covered everything. I think grade retention is limiting because it only covers elementary and high school. It doesn't cover college and beyond. It mostly talks about children who repeat grades, not about adults repeating courses that they failed. --Nitsirk 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the social promotion being merged into the grade retention article. So I'm going to put a merger up since both of us agree. --Nitsirk 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I oppose your POVish introduction. Your proposed introduction basically says "I don't like retention, so it doesn't exist." That's simply false. I will not support unsourced wishful thinking in this article. I know that you hate the idea that a young student might need to redo some material. I get that. But there are thousands of U.S. schools that encourage repetition of a single year for that "one in a hundred" student who would benefit (at least in the short term) rather than declaring the student to be disabled -- and there are NO U.S. schools which will not permit grade retention if a parent insists. Some of them even have special grades to support this. A few years ago, I volunteered at an elementary school that had a pre-first-grade class. All the kids started Kindergarten at the age of five. At the end of the year, the teachers made a list of who knew the alphabet and first ten numbers. If you knew the material, then you turned six and went to first grade. If you didn't know the material, then you turned six and went to pre-first. None of these kids seemed traumatized by the experience.

I've also spoken with parents who had their kids repeat a grade, and they generally seem satisfied. I've also spoken to two parents who wished that they had demanded that their child repeat a grade. One of them said her daughter would have been much happier throughout school if she had been with the next class, which was artistic and fun, instead of with the mean-spirited athletes in her exact age group. Retention may be unpleasant for some people, but not everyone opposes it. WhatamIdoing 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that there's a big difference between repeating an entire year and flunking a single university class. Grade retention is about re-doing everything. It essentially does not exist in American high schools, which work on a credit system exactly like the universities. In high school or unversity, if you flunk algebra, then you re-take just algebra. The level you're at (freshman or sophomore, for example) is just defined by how many classes you passed. My small county has over a hundred students in their fifth year of what's suposed to be a four-year high school program. However, in elementary school, if you flunk reading, then the typical options are:

• re-take the entire year,
• spend all summer in a catch-up program, or
• move into a program for learning disabled students.

You can't very well tell a six-year-old to switch back and forth between teachers and classrooms all day so he can learn last year's reading and this year's math -- especially in the district where my nieces attend, because every single grade is in a separate building in a different part of town. This article focuses on the experience of chidlren (under 14) specifically because they deal with unique issues due to the structure of a normal elementary school program and the age of the students. WhatamIdoing 22:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly so you admit it. Grade retention is only used in elementary schools. Repeater (student) reflects students of all ages. This is the more general term. You didn't make a comment about that. --Nitsirk 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to tell me what repeating is. I know what it means. People in college can repeat courses as well as repeating the entire year. If they fail the entire year, they can repeat the entire year. --Nitsirk 23:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Old research being used to bias article for retention.

The article cited (link) is old, from 1986, and is being used to bias a reader against retention policies by stating that research in the area of retention. However, newer research is available that confirms the statements made in the article (i.e., studies have confirmed the information with respect to the detriment retention may have on students). That research is well-summarized here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.231.169 (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What about this data on Florida?

http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/ttdocuments/EPRU-0512-140-OWI.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.60.228 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not an urban myth

Grade retentions are not urban myths. --174.92.79.163 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Andre's comment on this article

Dr. Andre has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I'm not a native English speaker, but I find some sentences weird. A native speaker should probably check the style of this article.

The structure of the introduction is not very clear. I would prefer to see a brief definition of grade repetition in the introduction (say: the first two paragraphs of the present article), and then a description of the practice over the world in the other sections. The third paragraph of the introduction mostly belongs to section 3.4 (some parts may become redundant there) Paragraph 4 is unclear: I'm not sure to which country it refers (maybe also to North America, then it belongs to section 3.4 as well)

"Grade retention or repetition was essentially meaningless in the one-room schoolhouses of more than a century ago, because access to outside standards were very limited, and the small scale of the school, with perhaps only a few students of each age, was conducive to individualized instruction." My edition (to improve style): "Grade repetition was essentially meaningless in the one-room schoolhouses of more than a century ago: there was no access to outside standards, and the small classes were conducive to individualized instruction."

The last sentences of the history section belong to the section on "research"

The section on research is not logical. The first sentence states that "There is conclusive evidence that grade retention is significantly helpful", and when it presents the three methodologies that exist, the first two are biased, and noone uses the third one.

Regarding the third methodology, a few research papers use quasi-random assignment to grade repetition based on Regression Discontinuity Designs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_discontinuity_design) when a standardized test determines grade repetition. See these papers:

Nagaoka, J., & Roderick, M. (2004). Ending Social Promotion: The Effects of Retention. Charting Reform in Chicago Series. Consortium on Chicago School Research, 1313 East 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637.

Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of public Economics, 89(5), 761-796.

Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2009). The effect of grade retention on high school completion. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3), 33-58.

Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2007). Revisiting grade retention: An evaluation of Florida's test-based promotion policy. Education, 2(4), 319-340

The section "international" is a bit heterogeneous. Ideally, it should include the same information on most areas, and there is currently much more details on Australia/New Zealand.

You can probably add a paragraph on Africa:

"Grade repetition in particularly common in Subsaharan Africa. In 2014, the average over countries of grade repetition rate (the share of pupils currently repeating their grade) was approximately 12%, and the maximum was 40% in Gabon and 25% in Chad and Burundi (source: https://www.iipe-poledakar.org/fr/indicateurs/base-dindicateurs). However, grade repetition rates decreased in the 2000s (the same average was 17% in 2000(same source)). The influence of international organizations (source: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEVCOMMINT/Documentation/20190709/DC2004-0002(E)-EFA.pdf, see box 1) may have contributed to this decline."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Andre has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Pierre Andre, 2012. "KIs grade repetition one of the causes of early school dropout? Evidence from Senegalese primary schools," THEMA Working Papers 2012-47, THEMA (THeorie Economique, Modelisation et Applications), Universite de Cergy-Pontoise.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Weird sentence...

-At the end of the opening paragraph...

Students are not necessarily repeat the grade in the same classroom, but it's the same grade anyway.

Like, what the hell does it mean? 199.85.208.19 (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry. 174.92.79.163 (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bias

I edited this content to remove implicit bias against grade retention. The new content is below. However, I question why an article on grade retention dedicates its first full paragraph to talking about social promotion. That very fact itself belies a bias on the part of the author who clearly prefers social promotion and has thus hijacked the very article to talk about an alternative to the subject matter itself. I am not removing the offending paragraph at this time but would love others to weigh in on whether this first paragraph ought be here at all, since it has nothing to do with "grade retention."

An alternative to grade retention due to failure is a policy of social promotion, with the idea that staying within their same age group is important. Social promotion is the obligatory advancement of all students regardless of achievements and absences.[1] Social promotion is used more in countries which use tracking to group students according to academic ability. Some academic scholars believe that underperformance must be addressed with intensive remedial help, such as summer school or after-school programs in contrast to failing and retaining the student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William.chesser (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @William.chesser, and welcome to Wikipedia. Alternatives to X always have something to do with X. Articles about any optional policy should describe some alternatives. For example, the alternatives to grade retention include at least:

• social promotion,
• additional services (e.g., taking extra classes during the summer),
• repeating some subjects but not others (typical for US high schools and universities – if you flunk 9th grade algebra, you have to take 9th grade algebra again, but you don't have to take 9th grade English again), and
• withdrawing from school (not unusual at the university level).

Therefore, I think this paragraph about alternative approaches should be kept and improved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, just in case you don't happen to be familiar with the research, it indicates that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate. If a younger child is performing at the expected level at the start of a school year, but misses a lot of school (e.g., due to illness or temporary family circumstances), then social promotion will probably work out okay. Assuming the problem is fully resolved, then the child will probably be working at grade level again in about two years. The problem with social promotion is when it is applied to a child who has never performed at the expected level, and who is failing due to problems that require changes to the typical educational program (e.g., participation in a Response to Intervention program or explicit instruction in phonics). That child is not likely to succeed if promoted despite poor performance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I am perfectly aware that "alternatives to X have to do with X" thanks. What I am saying is that maybe "alternatives to X" shouldn't be the FIRST PARAGRAPH in an article discussing X. Please show other examples from Wikipedia's list of exemplar articles where this is the case if I am incorrect. Or, and here's a fair test I think. Go over to the article on "social promotion" and tell me: is its opening paragraph dedicated to what grade retention is and how it might be better? I'll wait.

Doing it this way completely disrespects topic X in a way that shows clear implicit bias. Actually, in this case I would go so far as to call the bias explicit. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to give (hopefully true) information about a topic. While I don't dispute that "alternatives to X" might have a place somewhere in the article I just think that putting it as the first paragraph of substance on the page is bad form. I would argue that I already have improved it by removing the clear bias of judgement language from that opening paragraph.

I am a licensed professional science educator who has been teaching for 12 years. So I am quite familiar with research on the ways in which we might choose to do remediation for students and the pros and cons of each. I am also fully aware that this kind of research is "mushy" at best and is easy to manipulate to show whatever face a researcher may have a particular confirmation bias for. This article expresses a strong point of view that it is somehow settled that grade retention=bad and social promotion=good. While that idea may be in vogue at the moment, the statement itself is quite misleading as it leaves out a ton of nuance about each of those methods of correcting learning that was missed. The issue simply is not that cut and dried and this makes it seem like it is. The author of this article seems clearly to have had an agenda and, again, I think that agendas of that sort do not belong in a reference article.

Lastly, sorry for being a bit snippy. However, I believe that, in argument, we should lay our case out in as bald faced a manner as possible and not try to convince our interlocutor by the manipulation of using politically savvy language. If I can convince you that I am right while having this tone that you don't like then it may be a better indication that I have stumbled upon a truth. In short, I could have said this more nicely but chose not to on purpose to try and make a point for which I hope you can forgive me.

(edit) I should also have referred to the second of Wikipedia's Five Pillars above. My claim, here, is that this article is not ultimately written from a neutral POV and therefore likely needs a re-write. I also hope that my stance on argumentation style (that is, presenting a case coldly and not necessarily totally politely in order to attempt to achieve "truth") violates neither the spirit nor the letter of the Wikipedia guidelines regarding politeness.

William.chesser (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References