School Psychology Review,

2006, Volume 35, No. 1, pp. 134-141

RESEARCH BRIEE

Does the Timing of Grade Retention Make a Difference?

Examining the Effects of Early Versus Later Retention

Benjamin Silberglitt
St. Croix River Education District

Shane R. Jimerson
University of California Santa Barbara

Matthew K. Burns and James J. Appleton

University of Minnesota

Abstract. Research examining the effectiveness of grade retention has provided

overwhelming and seemingly irrefutahle evidence that grade retention is an
ineffective and potentially harmful practice. However, proponents of grade re-
tention often advocate that retention in the early elementary grades (e.g., kinder-
garten, first and second grade) is the justified exception. This longitudinal study
examined the reading growth trajectories of students (n = 49) from first through
eighth grade. Hierarchical linear modeling analytic procedures provided novel
insights regarding the relative reading growth trajectories among retained stu-
dents, comparing those students retained in kindergarten through second grade
with those students retained in Grades 3-6. The results revealed that the growth
trajectories of students retained early (Grades K-2) were comparable to those
retained later (Grades 3-5). These findings failed to support the efficacy of
retention at an earlier grade in elementary school.

Grade retention, defined as requiring a quently used and controversial intervention

student to remain at his or her current grade (Jimerson. Pletcher, Graydon, Schnurr, Nick-
level the following school year despite spend- erson, & Kindert, 2006). Approximately 2.4
ing a full school year at that given grade million children, or 5-10% of the school-aged
(Jackson, 1975), remains a relatively fre- population, have been retained each year

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Benjamin Silberglitt. St. Croix River
Education District, 425 South Dana Avenue, PO Box 637, Rush City, MN 55069; E-mail:
bsilberglitt@scred.kl2.mu.us
Copyright 2(X)6 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015

134
 Effect of Early Versus Later Grade Retention

(Dawson, 1998), but meta-analytic research grade) linked to better short- and long-term
has consistently revealed small to moderate outcomes relative to retention in later grades
mean effect sizes that favored the academic (third through fifth)?
and socioemotional development of promoted
comparison groups over groups of retained Method
children (Holmes. 1989; Holmes & Matthews,
1984; Jimerson, 2001). Participants
Longitudinal research also has failed to Participants were 49 students, from five
demonstrate an overall positive effect for districts in rural and suburban Minnesota, di-
grade retention as an intervention. Short-term vided into two groups. The participating
gains in mathematics skills have been noted, school districts did not have any recorded pol-
but higher absenteeism and lower social- icy or standard procedure for student reten-
emotional rankings among retained children as tions or retention decisions. The participating
compared to a group of promoted children students were all of the retained students
have also been found (Jimerson, Carlson, within those districts with complete data for
Rotert, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1997). Moreover, Grades K-8. Students were assigned to one of
grade retention has been linked to increased two groups based on grade of retention,
risk for dropping out of school to the extent with 27 students who were early retained
that early grade retention has been "one of the (Grades K-2) and 22 who were later retained
most powerful predictors of later school with- (Grades 3-5). The students included 17 (35%)
drawal" (Jimerson, Anderson, & Whipple, females and 32 (65%) males. The ethnicity of
2002, p. 452). i the total sample was 6.1% African Ameri-
Generally speaking, research has not can, 2.0% Asian, 85.7% Caucasian, and 6.1%
supported retention and suggested negative ef- Native American. For the total sample, 29
fects, so why are students retained? Grade (59%) students were eligible for free or re-
retention seems to hold an intuitive appeal duced price lunch for at least 1 school year
despite a lack of empirical support. It also during the study: 16 (59%) from the early-
seems intuitively advantageous to retain a retained group and 13 (59%) from the later-
child earlier (e.g., by second grade) rather than retained group. Finally, 2 (4%) students were
later (e.g., third grade or later). Students are retained in kindergarten, 19 (39%) in first
purportedly retained in early elementary grade, 6 (12%) in second grade, 9 (18%) in
grades to prevent future failure, and are re- third grade, 8 (16%) in fourth grade, and 5
tained in high school to prevent graduation by (10%) in fifth grade.
studetits who lack the basic skills necessary
for post-high school success (Martinez & Procedures
Vandergrift, 1991). Thus, retention before sec-
ond grade is viewed as an early intervention or The school districts that the students at-
a preventative measure. Graue and DiPema tended administered curriculum-based mea-
(2000) found that delayed entry into kinder- sures for reading assessment every fall, winter,
garten led to academic skills consistent with and spring for Grades I- 8, with the exception
peers, and early-retained students were more of fall for first grade. AU administrations were
advanced than students who were retained in a conducted by trained school personnel using
later grade. These data supported early reten- standardized procedures (Shinn, 1989). In to-
tion as prevention hypothesis, but a review of tal, there were 23 data points possible for each
the literature did not reveal any studies that participant, but missing data were possible for
examined timing of retention, rather than re- some participants. Data were compiled over
tention compared to delayed entry. Therefore, the school years from 1996-1997 to 2003-
the current study was conducted to answer the 2004 and student progression through the
following research question: Is retention in grades led to some missing data (e.g., some
early grades (kindergarten through second participants had not yet completed some upper

135
School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 1
grades by 2003-2004, or participants were
already in a later grade in 1996-1997). The
proportion of waves completed across the en-
tire sample was 47%.
Measures
The Reading-Curriculum Based Mea-
surement (R-CBM) measure consisted of three
l-min reading passages for each benchmark
assessment (fall, winter, spring). Passages
were standardized at grade-appropriate diffi-
culty as suggested by Howe and Shinn (2002),
and were curriculum independent, grade-level
appropriate, and of equal difficulty within
each grade level. Student data consisted of the
median number of words read correctly across
the three passages for each assessment. Read-
ing was assessed because most academic re-
ferrals to school psychologists were for read-
ing deficits (Bramlett, Murphy, Johnson,
Wallingsford, & Hall, 2002), and reading is
clearly an important skill for subsequent
knowledge acquisition. Because of the number
of students being assessed within the district
assessment plan and the simplicity of the mea-
sure to administer and score, interrater reli-
ability was not systematically collected during
these district-wide data collection efforts. Past
research on R-CBM has demonstrated test-
retest reliability of 0.92 and interrater reliabil-
ity of 0.99 (Marston, 1989).
Analysis
Research methodologies frequently used
to examine change in variables for individuals
have not allowed for explicit modeling of in-
dividual differences in growth, which can best
be addressed with hierarchical linear modeling
(HLM; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). Thus, R-
CBM growth rates across Grades 1-8 for stu-
dents retained in early grades (K-2) were
compared to those retained in later grades
(3-5). The 23 total waves of data were used to
conduct an HLM analysis using a random
effects covariance structure.
HLM is an example of a linear mixed
model (LMM), which is particularly well
suited to the type of problem addressed in this
study (Fitzmaurice, Laird, & Ware, 2004).
136
LMMs are useful for analyzing longitudinal
data, where the assumption of independence
between measurements cannot be met, be-
cause the measurements are nested within stu-
dents, and in this case, students are nested
within the early-retained and later-retained
groups. The random effects structure allows
individual students to vary on ail parameters
being estimated, while still providing group-
level estimates more appropriate than those
generated by traditional regression models. In
this analysis, the Level I equation models
individual growth over time. For each individ-
ual ( at time j , the Level I equation is as
follows:
,V,y= + (1)
In the Level 1 equation, quadratic
growth is modeled for each student, with c,y
representing error. The Level 2 equations then
model group differences in each of these beta
values. In these equations, g refers to group
membership (early retained or later retained),
and b is the error term. Level 2 equations are
as follows:
(2)
o. = Po + +
(3)
+ Psg, + (4)
LMMs also allow for missing data, a
common occurrence when conducting longi-
tudinal studies over a large time span. In this
study, data were assumed to be missing at
random. LMMs also assume independence be-
tween subjects, an assumption that can be ad-
dressed by sampling randomly from the pop-
ulation. Although this sample is admittedly a
small sample from a single region of the coun-
try, we have assumed this premise has been
met for the sake of these analyses, and recog-
nize the limitations of our sample. A final
assumption of LMMs is that the response vari-
able be normally distributed, which is gener-
ally the case with R-CBM (Hintze & Silber-
glitt, 2005).

Results
The variance-covariance matrix re-
vealed increasing variance across the waves of
the study, with decay. As the amount of time
between R-CBM measurements increased, the
degree of covariance between the scores on
those measurements decreased. In addition, a
higher amount of variance was found for R-
CBM scores from higher grade levels. Level 1
analysis generated an individual slope (includ-
ing linear and quadratic components) and in-
tercept for each participant. Correlation be-
tween the quadratic slope parameter estimates
and the intercept estimates across participants
was —0.23, indicating that the growth curves
of retained students with a higher initial level
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
•20 -1 1 1 r -T 1 I
Gnde and Season of R-CBM
Figure 1, Longitudinal growth curves for early-retained (Grades K-2) and
later^retained (Grades 3-5) students.
Effect of Early Versus Later Grade Retention
of performance had a slight tendency to have
a more negative quadratic bend. Correlation
between the linear slope parameter estimates
and intercept estimates across participants
was 0.62, indicating a moderate to strong pos-
itive correlation between beginning level of
performance and the linear slope of growth
among retained students.
Level 2 analysis included a single dum-
my-coded variable identifying group member-
ship in the early (0) versus later (1) retention
groups. Regression lines were drawn using
these mean parameter estimates, as shown in
Figure 1. Actual parameter estimates and re-
sults of significance tests are shown in Tables
I and 2. In each table, parameter estimates and
1 r
137
School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 1
Table 1
Significance Tests of the Differences in Parameter Estimates for
Early'Retained (K-2) Versus Later-Retained (3-5) Groups
Parameter
Parameter Estimate
Intercept 24.852
Linear slope 6.295
Quadratic .slope -0.023
Later-retained intercept^ -25.445
Later-retained linear slope" 3.909
Later-retained quadratic slope* -0.181
"pLirameter estimate.s for the later-retained group represent the difference between this group and the early-retained
group. The f tests examine ihe significance of these differences.
corresponding standard errors are given first
for the early-retained group. Second, the ad-
justments to these estimates are provided for
the later-retained group. For example, in Table 1,
the estimate of the intercept for the early-re-
tained group was 24.852. The adjustment to this
intercept for the later-retained group was
-25.445. So, one could calculate the parameter
estimate for the later-retained group's intercept
lo be —0.593. The corresponding p values
present the results of the statistical significance
tests for these adjustments.
Table I provides parameter estimates
for the intercept, linear, and quadratic
growth component. These are also the pa-
rameter estimates used in Figure I, How-
ever, a significance test of this linear com-
ponent is not appropriate, as significance
tests of lower order parameter estimates are
not appropriate in the presence of higher
order parameter estimates (Fitzmaurice et
al., 2004). A separate analysis was con-
ducted with the quadratic parameter esti-
mate removed, to generate an interpretable
significance test of the linear parameter es-
timate. This analysis is presented in Table 2.
Before specific significance tests of differ-
ences in parameter estimates were examined in
Table 1, an omnibus test was conducted for all
tests of group differences among slope and in-
tercept parameters. This omnibus test was sig-
138
SE
3.028
1.255
0.058
5.184 41 4.91 <.ooai
1.832
0.082 28.5 -2.21 0.0356
nificant, E(X 22.1) = 7.90, /> < .001, indicaUng
that the specific tests could reasonably be exam-
ined. As shown in Table I. a statistically signif-
icant difference (p < .0001) was found between
the mean intercept parameters for the eitrly- and
later-retained groups, with the intetcept for the
early-^retained group being larger. In practical
terms, the difference in the intercept estimates
for the two groups was approximately 25 words
read correctly per minute, with a standard error
of approximately 5 words. In addition, a mod-
estly significant difference (/; = .036) was found
between the mean quadratic slope parameters for
the early- and later-retained groups, with the
later-retained group showing a larger negative
bend in the growth curve. As shown in Table 2,
no significant difference (p = .37) was found
between the mean linear slope parameters for the
early- and later-retained groups. The practical
significance of the slope parameters must be
considered simultaneously. In practical terms,
the iater-retained group's quadratic growth term
was 0.181 smaller than that of the early retained
group. However, the linear growth tenii for the
later-retained group was 3.909 larger. Over the
course of the study (from Grade I winter to
Grade 8 spring), assuming all other terms in each
group's growth curve were equal, these differ-
ences would lead to the early-retained group's
Grade 8 spring score being 1.6 words conxict per
minute higher than that of the later-retained

Table 2
Significance Tests of the Differences in the Linear Growth Component for
Early'Retained (K-2) Versus Later-Retained (3-5) Groups
Parameter
Parameter Estimate
Intercept 25.030
Linear slope 6.051
Later-retained intercept" -14.867
Later-retained linear slope" 0.756
"Parameter estimates for the later-retained group represent the difference between this group and the early-retained
group. The f tests examine the significance of these differences.
group. Although the differences in the linear
component of the slope for the two groups were
not statistically significant, they do appear to
offset the statistically significant difference in
the quadratic component. In effect, the practical
difference In slope between these two groups is
negligible.
1 •'•
. - Discussion
Growth curves for the early- and later-
retained students (Grades K-2 and 3-5, re-
spectively) were modeled and compared using
HLM procedures. Reading data from tbe first
year of the grade in which the student was
retained were removed before the growth
curves were modeled. The average reading
score in the winter of first grade (i.e., inter-
cept) was significantly bigher for the group
tbat was retained earlier. This is somewbat
unexpected, given that one would anticipate a
lower level of performance in the early grades
to be more likely to lead to a decision to retain
immediately. These data could support tbe rel-
atively long-held belief that retention deci-
sions are often made with teacher judgment
and otber subjective factors rather than aca-
demic data (Cadigan, Entwisle, Alexander, &
Pallas. 1988; Gloeckler, 1986).
Despite the difference in the intercepts,
there was no significant difference in linear
slope parameters for the two growth curves,
but the later-retained group bad a significantly
Effect of Early Versus Later Grade Retention
SE df
3.180
0.590
4.962
0.828 29.9 0.91 0.3684
larger negative bend in the growtb curve, and
tbe early-retained group's growtb rate contin-
ued in a linear fasbion. Tbis trend in tbe
growth curve suggested that students retained
later had a more rapid deceleration of growtb
compared to the more consistent progress rate
of the early-retained students. Rather than per-
ceive this as a benefit for early retentions, it is
possible that these data are a result of a greater
negative effect from later retentions. Research
has consistently found a negative socioemo-
tional impact from grade retention (Holmes,
1989; Holmes & Matthews. 1984; Jimerson,
2001). It is possible that this effect is stronger
for students wbo are older, and more emotion-
ally mature, at the time of retention. However,
this is only one possible explanation of this
finding, and previous researcb literature was
seemingly void of comparisons between ef-
fects of early and later grade retention. Tbus,
tbese data sbould be interpreted carefully, and
replication is needed before confident interpre-
tations can be made.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future
Research
The current study has presented data
that may be of interest to botb researcbers and
practitioners; however, several limitations
should be noted. First, tbe sample size was
relatively small, with 27 students in the early-
retained group and 23 in the later-retained
139
School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 1
group, with little assurance of equal child vari-
ables prior to being retained. Therefore, repli-
cation thai accounts for child-centered vari-
ables (e.g., socioeconomic status, IQ, prere-
tention skill level) is recommended for further
insights regarding tbe nature of growth for
students retained earlier versus later in their
educational careers. Another limitation of the
current study is the lack of examination of
student perspectives of retention and the effect
of risk factors upon student developmental
trajectories (e.g., socioemotional outcomes).
Myriad factors influence tbe development of
retained students (Jimerson et al, 1997; Jimer-
son, 2001; Jimerson et al., 2002). and includ-
ing estimates of tbese variables would im-
prove the study. Future retention research
could also encompass a more comprebensive
array of tbe risk and protective factors imping-
ing on the developmental trajectories of re-
tained students. Furthermore, despite diversity
of age, income (47% free and reduced lunch),
and location (rural and suburban), tbis sample
was racially homogenous (>91% White). The
generalizability of these data could be en-
banced by including more diverse racial and
cultural groups. Finally, tbe current study used
reading as the dependent variable, which is the
most frequent academic deficit area. However,
analyses examining other academic skills
(e.g., mathematics) and outcomes through
high school would also be of great value in
considering the effects of earlier and later
grade retention, especially given researcher
suggestions of tbe effect of early retention
(e.g., in first grade) on dropping out of higb
scbooi (Alexander, Entwisle, & Horsey,
1997).
Tbe analyses of longitudinal reading tra-
jectories in this study revealed that early grade
retention {kindergarten througb second grade)
did not yield advantages in reading trajectories
from first to eighth grade, relative to students
retained later (third through fiftb grades), but a
more linear progress rate was noted. Altbough
tbe idea of early retention has intuitive appeal,
tbe data fail to support retention, whether it is
early or later. Thus, proponents of grade re-
tention base their position on "common sense"
tbat repeating the year will enhance student
140
achievement and adjustment, but research re-
veals that the practice of grade retention is
"nonsense," in that it appears to do more harm
tban good (Jimerson, 2001). Neitber grade re-
tention nor social promotion will adequately
address tbe needs of students (Jimerson, 2001;
Jimerson et al., 2006); rather, specific evi-
dence-based interventions are required to pro-
mote the cognitive and social competence of
students.
References
Alexander, K. L.. Enlwisle, D. R., & Horsey, C. S. (1997).
From first grade forward; Early foundations of high
school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 87-
107.
Bramlett. R. K.. Murphy. J. J.. Johnson. J., Wallingsford,
L., & Hall, J. D. (2002). Contemporary practices in
school psychology: A national survey of roles and
referral problems. Psychology in ihe Schools. 39, 327-
335.
Bryk. A. S.. & Raudenbush. S. W. (1992). Hierarchical
linear models: Applications and data analysis meth-
ods. Newbury Park. CA: Sage Publications.
Cadigan. D.. Entwisle. D. R.. Alexander, K. L.. & Pallas,
A. M. (1988). First-grade retention among low achiev-
ing students: A search for significant predictors. Mer-
rill-Palmer Quarterly, 34. 71-88.
Dawson. P. (1998). A primer on student grade retention:
What the research says. Communique. 26(8). 28-30.
Fitzmaurice, G. M., Laird, N. M., & Ware. J. H. (2004).
Applied longitudinal analysis. Hoboken. NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Graue, E., & DiPema. J. (2000). Redshirting and early
retention: Who gets the "gift of time" and what are its
outcomes? American Educational Re.^tearch Joumal,
37, 509-334.
Gloeckler, T. (1986). Data-based decision-making proce-
dures for determining in-grade retention. Education,
107, 182-186.
Hintze, J- M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal
exatnination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive
validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School
P.iychology Review, 340), 372-386.
Holmes, C. t . (1989). Grade-level retention effects: A
meta-analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard &
M. L. Smith (Eds.) Flunking grades: Research and
policies on retention (pp. 16-33). London: The Falmer
Press.
Holme.s. C. T.. & Manhews, K. M. (1984). The effects of
nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school
pupils: A meta-anatysis. Reviews of Educational Re-
search, 54. 225-236.
Howe, K. B., & Shinn. M. M. (2002). Standard reading
assessment passages (RAPs) for u.'ie in General Out-
come Measurement: A manual describing development
and technical features (technical manual), Eden Prai-
rie, MN: Edformalion.
Jackson. G. (1975). The research evidence on the effects
of grade retention. Review of Educational Research,
^5,613-635.
 Effect of Early Versus Later Grade Retention

• '' 1
Jimerson, S. R. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention
research: Implications for practice in the 21st century.
School Psychology Review, 30, 420-438.
Jimerson, S., Anderson, G. E.. & Whipple, A. D. (2002).
Winning the battle and losing the war: Examining the
relationship between grade retention and dropping out
of high school. Psychology in the Schools, 39. 4 4 1 -
457.
Jimerson. S.. Carlson, E.. Rotert, M., Egeland, B., &
Sroufe, L. A. (1997). A prospective, longitudinal study
of the correlates and consequences of early grade re-
tention. Joumal of School Psychology, 35. 3-25.
Jimerson. S. R., Pletcher, S. M., Graydon, K., Schnurr,
B. L., Nickerson. A. B., & Kundeii. D. K. (2(K)6).
Beyond grade retention and social promotion: Promot-
ing the social and academic competence of students.
Psychology in the Schooh, 43, 85-97.
Marston. D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement
approach to assessing academic performance: What it
is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Eid.), Curriculum-
based measurement: Asse.\sing special children (pp,
18-78). New York: Guilford Press.
Martinez, B., & Vandergrift. J, A. (1991). Eailing students:
Is it worth Ihe cost? (Issue Paper .1). Tempe: Morrison
Institute for Puhlic Policy. Arizona Slate University.
Shinn. M. R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic
problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures.
In M. R. Shinn (Ed.). Curriculum-based measurement:
Assessing speciai children (pp. 90-129). New York;
Guilford.
Date Received: July 7, 2005
Date Accepted: December 13, 2005
Actioti Editor: John Hintze •

Benjamin Silberglitt received his PhD in Educational Psychology (School Psychology)

from the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities in 2003. He currently serves as the
Outcomes Manager for the St. Croix River Education District, managing the research,
assessmeni, and evaluation efforts of its tnember districts.

Shane Jimerson, PhD, is a faculty member at the University of California, Santa Barbara,
in the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education with both the Counseling, Clinical, and
School Psychology program and the Child and Adolescent Development program. His
scholai^hip continues to examine the importance of early experiences on subsequent
development and to emphasize the importance of research infonning professional practice
to promote the social and cognitive competence of children.

Matthew K. Bums, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Educational Psychology at the

University of Minnesota. Current research interests include curriculum-based assessment,
response to intervention, problem-solving teams, and consultative service delivery for
special education.

James Appleton is a school psychology doctoral student at the University of Minnesota

working with the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. He is
interested in student engagement with school, social development, and evidence-based
interventions.

141