Grade+Retention+Vs.+Social+Promotion

=Overview =

Students in the United States have certain requirements to meet at each grade level in order to advance to the next grade level. These requirements are generally determined by the state through standards and assessed by educators through exams and grades. Students who score high enough grades (generally, averaging 70 or above) are said to have met the requirements to advance to the next grade level. Students who fail to meet the minimum requirements are retained and forced to repeat the class or grade level. Grade retention is requiring a student to repeat a grade, because last year, the student experienced developmental delays which made the student fail the grade and/or grade-level class (Robles-Pina & Stapleton, 2008). However, there is an alternative for these failing students that occurs surprisingly often: social promotion. Under this ideological principle, students are kept with their peers regardless of their progress towards the standards.

Many times, teachers feel pressured to keep students on grade-level with their peers, even if the students failed to meet the minimum criteria to pass the class. This occurs most often in a student’s graduating year. Are teachers upholding the integrity of the profession by allowing failing students to advance? Or is there overwhelming pressure from administration and parents to allow these students to graduate? On the other hand, if a student is struggling to grasp concepts and has failed a class, teachers and sometimes parents choose to retain the student for one year. In most cases, retention has led to a repetitive cycle of academic failure. Are the teachers and parents doing a disservice to the students by keeping them from experiencing school and graduating with their peers?

=Trend or Issue? =

Social promotion is the current trend in the United States. Social promotion arose in the 1930’s after growing concern about the phycological effects of grade retention. Educators and parents believed that retaining students was not only ineffective but damaging to their self-esteems. Students who are required to repeat a grade are often isolated by not being in classes with their peers. Also, grade retention has proved ineffective since students often receive no additional support. As Richard Teese, director of the Centre for Research on Education Systems at the University of Melbourne, said, ''They are simply exposed to the same curriculum and teaching process which didn't work the first time around” (Collins & Harrison, 2011). The social promotion trend later reversed in the 1980’s due to fear of slipping academic standards. However, with the implementation of No Child Left Behind in 2002 and the pressure for higher graduation rates and reduced drop outs, social promotion is returning to the forefront (Kaplan & Owings, 2001). The increasing popularity of social promotion is supported by current educational studies relating grade retention to decreased academic performance. A rigorous study performed by Notre Dame sociologist Megan Andrew analyzed data comparing students from similar backgrounds, some who were retained a grade and some who were not. Most of those who were retained a grade were retained in the 1980’s, during the time grade retention gained popularity. Andrew found that students who repeat a year between kindergarten and fifth grade are 60% less likely to graduate high school than kids with similar backgrounds. The data also revealed that retained students were 60% less likely to graduation high school than their siblings who were never retained (Barshay, 2014). Retention rates are one of the most powerful predictors of high school dropouts.



While it is difficult to out-right prove that social promotion is occurring more often, the practice seems to be growing since graduation rates are rising but test scores are falling. During the Obama Administration, many changes were enacted to improve graduation rates across the nation. In 2015, the U.S. graduation rate was 83%, which was an all-time high. Actually, 2015 marked the 5th record-breaking year in a row. Even as the graduation rate continues to climb in most states, national test scores are flat-lining. National SAT and ACT scores are even on the decline, with current SAT scores averaging at a decade-low of 1450 on a scale of 2400. The state of Georgia’s graduation rate has risen more than 10 points just in the past 5 years (Kamenetz & Turner, 2016). Surprisingly, then, the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement reports decreasing end-of-course assessment scores for the state (Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, 2017).



How can this be possible? If test scores are continuing to fall, why are graduation rates soaring? The answer may lie with the principle of social promotion. Most states mandate that standardized test scores be incorporated into a student’s final grade. Georgia’s policy uses the grading scale of 80% weighted to the classroom assessments, with the remaining 20% being the student’s resulting standardized test score. Georgia’s test scores are falling, which means students’ grades should be falling. However, grades cannot be on the decline if Georgia has a graduation rate of 73% compared to the 63% rate just a few years ago (Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, 2017). Unless, of course, social promotion is on the rise. That would explain how schools are achieving higher and higher graduation rates every year while test scores continue to fall.

The trend of social promotion has no positive impact on student achievement alone, just as the opposing trend of grade retention will not positively impact students on its own. Educators and administrators must implement supports for these students. Changes must be made in instruction in order for either option to be effective.

Bibliography

====Barshay, Jill. (2014). New research suggests repeating elementary school grades - even kindergarten - is harmful. The Hechinger Report. Retrieved from []. ==== Barshay references a study performed by Megan Andrews that uncovers a strong correlation between grade retention and graduation rates.

====Collins, Sarah-Jane & Harrison, Dan. (2011). Repeating grades ‘fails’ students. The Sidney Morning Herald. Retrieved from []. ==== Collins and Harrison discuss the negative psychological impacts of grade retention.

====Kamenetz, Anya & Turner, Cory. (2016). The high school graduation rate reaches a record high – again. NPRED. Retrieved from []. ==== This article questions the validity of state graduation rates since test scores continue to fall.

====Kaplan, Leslie S. & Owings, William A. (2001). Alternatives to retention and social promotion. Retrieved from []. ==== <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">This article provides a brief synopsis of the history of grade retention and social promotion.

====<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Robles-Pina, Rebecca A. & Stapleton, Kelly. (2008). Grade retention: Good or bad? A review of the literature. Sam Houston State University. Retrieved from []. ==== <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">This article defines grade retention and explores the pros and cons.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">The Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. (2017). Report card. Retrieved from [].
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">The GOSA provides data on school achievement to the public.