Psyrhology in the Schools Volumr 22, April 1985

A HIGH SCHOOL FOLLOW-UP O F CHILDREN WHO WERE NONPROMOTED OR ATTENDED A JUNIOR FIRST GRADE’

JONATHAN SANDOVAL PHYLLIS FITZGERALD

University of California, Davis Dixon Public Schools, Dixon , California

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term effects of repeating a grade or participating in a junior first-grade program. High school students (N= 137) answered a questionnaire concerning their experience with grade retention or a transitional year while in elementary school. In addition, we collected data on past academic perfor- mance from the students’ school records. Groups of students were composed of former participants in the junior first program, students who had been retained in a grade, and matched controls. Attitudes toward nonpromotion and the junior first program were positive and, among all three groups, there were few important differences in opinion. In high school, however, measures of academic competence in- dicated there were performance differences between the groups. Participants in the junior first program were at par with peers, whereas grade repeaters made less progress in high school and had lower mathematics grades. The later in school the grade retention, the poorer the academic performance.

Reviewers of the 75 years of literature on nonpromotion (e.g., Heffernan, 1952; Jackson, 1975; Saunders, 1941) point out that the presumed benefits of grade level reten- tion on children’s academic, social, and emotional growth have not been proven. On the other hand, decades of research have not documented the suggested negative effects of retention on children’s development. Jackson (1979, particularly, is quick to point out the host of methodological flaws in the research corpus that bias the outcomes of research either toward demonstrating that it is successful or that it is ineffective and harmful.

As with other educational ideas, nonpromotion has had cycles of popularity (Rose, Medway, Cantrell, & Marcus, 1983). In the 19th and early 20th century, retention was a common practice, the method of choice for addressing the problems of the slow learner. Because of concern for social and emotional development, from the 1930s to the 1960s “social promotion” became the rule and nonpromotion fell into disuse. The 1970s and 1980s brought a shift in educators’ interest to criterion reference testing and mastery learning. At the same time, the public began to insist on educational accountability in the face of the decline in scholastic achievement and perceived relaxed academic standards. As a result, nonpromotion has again become the vogue. As more and more states move toward minimum competency testing throughout the grades, the practice of nonpromo- tion will increase as one consequence of students failing to meet competencies.

Perhaps if the results of research had been more clear and uniform, policy makers would have listened, rather than swinging with the historical pendulum. Unfortunately, besides problems associated with weak experimental designs (Jackson, 1 9 9 , other fac- tors have limited the usefulness for practice of the research to date. Gaps in Research

Two gaps in the current literature are noteworthy: investigators have not asked children directly to evaluate their experience and have not evaluated retention over a long

Reprint requests should be sent to Jonathan Sandoval, Dept. of Education, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616.

‘This research was supported by a grant from the Intercampus Activity Fund of the University of Califor- nia to the first author. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Detroit, March 23, 1983.

164

Follow- Up 165

time period. Although objective measures of the cognitive or intellectual functioning of children are highly developed, measures of social and emotional functioning do not have comparable reliability or validity. Many investigators have, as a result, turned to the ratings of teachers and parents, in addition to personality inventories, to assist them in judging the social and emotional outcomes of nonpromotion (Chase, 1968; Finlayson, 1977; Scott & Ames, 1969). One solution to the measurement problem is simply to ask the children directly. However, few studies have been done in which the recipients of non- promotion have been asked about the effect of this intervention on their lives. An excep- tion is Russell (1952), who found somewhat more negative attitudes toward nonpromo- tion on the part of retainees and their families than of controls.

The fact that young children are often the subjects of research points up another problem. Most studies have evaluated the effects of retention within a year or two of the intervention. Long-term follow-up of children (i.e., greater than 2 or 3 years) is rare (Kammi and Weikart’s 1963 study is an exception). To date, there have been no studies in which high school students have been asked to reflect back on their earlier school careers.

There are suggestions from a meta analysis of the research that nonpromotion is most effective when it occurs early in a child’s school career. Grade retained is an exam- ple of a variable that has gone uncontrolled in many studies, adding to the difficulty of drawing clear inferences for practice. Other possibly important uncontrolled variables in- clude ability of the children, developmental level, and the curriculum received by the children repeating a grade (Sandoval & Hughes, 1981).

An Alternative to Nonpromotion The suggestion of the efficacy of early intervention with children at risk of failure

has led some school districts to develop junior first-grade programs (Solem, 1981). The object of the junior first grade is to ease the transition from kindergarten to first grade. By spreading the kindergarten and first-grade curriculum over three years, the hope is to provide the extra time some children need to master readiness skills and to mature. At the end of kindergarten, children, at the option of their parents, are placed in a junior first grade, rather than being retained or promoted on to a conventional first-grade classroom. An entire classroom group of such children is formed. At the end of the junior first year, the children begin first grade and proceed normally through the grades. The use of an entire class reduces the possible stigma associated with kindergarten non- promotion and provides children with a curriculum geared to their particular needs. Districts with junior first grades may institute nonpromotion as a policy for other grades, however.

The present research is an effort to learn more about the long-term effects of non- promotion and an alternative, the junior first grade. This study examined the attitudes and school progress of adolescents who had repeated a grade, or participated in a junior first-grade program of one suburban-rural school district. It is a long-term follow-up in high school using the self-reports of students asking about academic, social, and emotional outcomes of these interventions. We posed the following questions:

(1) Do high school students who have earlier repeated a grade or been in a junior first program believe the experience helped them academically, socially, and emotionally? (2) Is there a difference between those who repeated a grade and those who entered a junior first grade with respect to their evaluation of those programs?

I66 Follow- Up

(3) Is there a difference in general attitude toward nonpromotion held by retainees, participants in the junior first program, and their fellow students? (4) Is there a difference in school performance for the three groups? (5) Is attitude related to grade retained?

METHOD Subjects

The adolescents in this study consisted of the complete population of the single high school in a Northern California suburban-rural community who had repeated at least one grade (N=41) or had been in the districts’s junior first-grade program (N=34). In addition, 75 control students were matched at random to these students from those of the same sex taking the same high school English class. By matching to students in the same classroom, to the extent there is tracking or self-selection into courses, there is a control for ability and motivation. The exclusion of children enrolled in special education reduced the groups to 30, 32, and 75, respectively. Fifty-six percent of the adolescents were male, 44% were female.

Children participating in the junior first-grade program do so on the basis of four factors. Kindergarten teachers and district guidance personnel select children: (a) with late in the year birthdays, (b) who are immature socially and in their work habits, and (c) who are judged to be intellectually capable in spite of immaturity. Finally (d), their parents must agree to the junior first-grade placement. Measures and Procedure

To assess attitude, we constructed and field tested a questionnaire asking retained and junior first participants if their experience helped them to do better in school, make more friends, and feel better about themselves. We asked all students whether retention helped oher srudents they knew do better in school, make more friends, feel better about themselves, and if retention was generally a good idea. The students responded on a 6- point Likert scale and had the option to make comments at the end of the questionnaire. Tables 1 and 2 contain the questions. The high school English teachers allowed time for the questionnaire to be completed during English period.

Research assistants collected data from school records about retention history and grade retained, high school units attempted and earned, performance on district- administered tests of minimum competency, special education placement, and course grades in English and mathematics.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 contains the frequency of types of responses of junior first participants and

grade repeaters to the questions about whether such interventions helped them academically, socially, or emotionally. At the bottom of the tables are means and stan- dard deviations for the groups. T-tests of the means revealed no significant group differences in opinion.

Further analyses compared the responses to questions within groups. Within the group who had repeated, a test of the means indicated no difference between the response to the first and second questions, but a difference between the first and third questions, t(28)=2.56, p = .016, suggesting that repeating children were least positive about reten- tion making them feel better about themselves.

Folio W- Up I67

Table 1 Frequency of Response Choices to three Attitude Questions by two Groups of Students

Question

Response

Did repeating the grade or junior first grade help you:

Feel better about Do better in school? Make more friends? yourself!

Group Group Group

Junior Grade Junior Grade Junior Grade First Repeater First Repeater First Repeater

~~

1. Yes, much better 7 9 4 4 I 5 2. Yes, better 8 5 7 7 7 5 3. Yes, a little better 3 6 1 12 5 1 4. No, not much better 3 1 7 5 4 1 5. No, it was somewhat harmful 0 2 2 1 2 2 6. No, it was harmful 2 1 2 0 4 3

No response 9 0 9 1 9 1 Total 32 30 32 30 32 30

M* 2.43 2.10 3.09 2.12 3.48 3.17 SD* 1.50 1.47 1.59 1.03 1.56 1.54

*excluding subjects marking not applicable

Table 2 Differences in Attitude toward Nonpromotion held by three Groups as Reflected by Means and Standard Deviations*

What effect did repeating a grade have on people you Control Junior First Grade know who repeated: Group Participants Repeaters

~~

Did they do better in school?

Did they do better at making friends?

X SD N

X SD N

Did they feel better about themselves and who they are? X

SD N

In general, what effect does repeating a grade have on people? X

SD N

2.96 1.30 54 3.40 .93

53

3.65 1.31 52

2.84 1.22 63

2.96 2.75 1.32 1 .oo 28 28

3.19 2.75** 1.47 .95

21 29

3.61 3.03 1.42 1.27 28 29

2.61 2.48 1.52 1.35 28 29

~

*(lower numbers indicate more affirmative answers) **Significant: F(2, 106)=3.20, p2.04

168 FoIIo W - U p

Within the junior first group, the mean response to the first question was significantly different from the second, t (22)= -2.40, p = .025, and from third, t(22)= -3.86, p=.025, suggesting that the junior first participants were the most positive about the academic benefits of their program.

To evaluate the differences in attitude toward nonpromotion held by retainees, junior first participants, and matched controls, we prepared Table 2 containing the means and standard deviations of the responses to the questions having to do with the effects on acquaintances. One-way analysis of variance indicated only one difference in opinion between the groups, on the question of social benefits. Planned comparison con- trasts indicated that the control group mean was different from the other two groups pooled, and from the grade repeaters. The differences suggest that the control group is less positive about the social benefits of retention than the other groups, especially the retainees.

Table 3 Differences in Academic Progress of three Groups as Rejected by Means and Standard Deviations

Control Junior First Grade Group Participants Repeaters F Sig

First Semester Freshman English grade

First Semester Freshman Math grade

District Minimum Competency Examination performance

Academic progress (Ratio of units received to units attempted)

X 5.39 6.19 SD 2.96 2.70 N 74 32

X 5.47 6.16 SD 3.00 2.11 N 75 31

X 2.90 2.64 SD 1.20 1.13 N 63 28

X .93 .94 SD .09 . l l N 75 32

4.40 2.86 .06 3.16

30

3.66 5.60 .o 1

3.36 29

2.79 .49 .6 1

1.14 24

.81 9.94 .01

.24 30

We were interested in learning how the school performance differed for the three groups. We decided to compare the freshman (grade 9) high school English and mathematics grades, since all students were required to take these courses. Grades were converted from letter grades (with minuses and pluses) to a scale ranging from 0 for F to 11 for A. During their freshman year, all students take a district-designed minimum competency examination in three areas. Test performance that was scored pass-fail was evaluated by the number of areas passed, 0 to 3. Finally, the ratio of units received to un- its attempted was computed as a measure of academic progress, since poorer students complete fewer units. Table 3 contains the statistics for the three groups. One-way analysis of variance indicates clear group differences in math grades and in academic progress. The planned comparisons indicate that, in both cases, the grade repeaters do worse than the other two groups.

Follow- Up 169

Table 4 Correlation between Grade Retained and Attitude toward Nonpromotion and Academic Criteria

r n Attitude/Academic Criteria

- .008 28

,236 21

-.243 21

-.226 21

-.354* 28

-.419** 21 -.584** 22

-.553** 28

Did better in school Made more friends Felt better about self General effect Grade in English Grade in mathematics Competency exams passed Academic progress

*pS.05 **p1.01

Our final question concerned the relationship of the time of the intervention, either junior first or the grade repeated, and the measures of attitude toward retention and academic performance. Table 4 contains these correlations. Time of intervention was un- related to attitude, but the later the retention in the students’ school career, the poorer was their high school achievement.

Because the adolescents in this study were not randomly assigned to repeat or par- ticipate in the junior first-grade program, the reader must not draw strong inferences about group differences. These differences must be related in part to the fact that the junior first participants were carefully selected. Even though the control group was matched in ability and motivation, the differences in academic performance may not be surprising. On the other hand, one can speculate about the long-term outcomes of a selective program. Both students who had repeated a grade and who had participated in a junior first-grade program were generally positive about the effect of these experiences on them. Very few students indicated the experiences were somewhat harmful or harmful; most indicated the experiences helped them do a little better academically, socially, or in self-acceptance. Further, the groups did not differ in their opinion about the benefits, although the retained children were less positive about benefits to self-acceptance, and the junior first grades were relatively more positive about the academic benefits.

These positive attitudes may reflect the fact that these programs were of help to many of the students involved. Another explanation is that the students gave what they believed to be socially desirable responses. Then, too, the positive attitudes may reflect dissonance reduction (Festinger, 1957), in that, having participated in a program, the students became obliged to look upon it favorably. This latter explanation is con- tradicted by the fact that the matched control children were also positive about the effects of retention, although less so about the social benefits. If “customer” satisfaction is a criterion, the nonpromotion and junior first programs received a vote of confidence. These findings of positive attitudes and no differences in attitude between retainees and control subjects are in opposition to those of Russell (1952). The controls in Russell’s study, however, were not matched in any way to the retainees.

The information about the academic performance of the program participants sup- ports the junior first program. These pupils were superior to the control group on three out of four of the indicators of academic progress, although the differences did not reach

170 Follow- Up

significance. Junior first participants at the time of high school had become indiscernible from their peers.

Although unrelated to attitude, time of intervention (either grade retention or the junior first program) was related to scholastic achievement. Those children placed in the junior first program or retained early in the elementary grades had better high school grades and made better academic progress. Either early intervention had the desired effects, or later grade retention had detrimental impacts on students, or both. Then, too, later grade retention may more likely result from poor achievement and be used as a last resort with unmotivated or unsuccessful children. Retention in later grades needs more 3tudy.

In sum, the present study provides some evidence that the junior first program lives up to the expectations of district personnel. Students have favorable attitudes about the experience and achieve at least at the same high school level as their peers. Had these students not entered this program, perhaps they may not have done as well. On the other hand, these students and the retained students have been in school one year longer at con- siderable cost to the school and parents. We do not know if they might not have done as well had they been sociaHy promoted. The surprisingly favorable attitudes of students in this district to nonpromotion may be attributable to the presence of this program, which they do not distinguish from nonpromotion.

REFERENCES CHASE, J. A. (1968). A study of the impact of grade retention on primary school children. Journal of

FESTINGER, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. FINLAYSON, H. J. (1977). Nonpromotion and self-concept development. Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 205-206. HEFFERNAN, H. (1952). What research says about nonpromotion. California Journal of Elementary Educa-

tion, 21, 7-24. JACKSON, G. B. (1975). The research evidence on the effects of grade retention. Review of Educational

Research, 45, 613-635. KAMMI, C. K., & WEIKART, D. P. (1963). Marks, achievement and intelligence of seventh graders who were

retained (nonpromoted) once in elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 56, 452-459. ROSE, J. S., MEDWAY, F. J., CANTRELL, V. L., & MARUS, S. H. (1983). A fresh look at the retention-

promotion controversy. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 201-214. RUSSELL, D. H. (1952). The influence of repetition of a grade and of regular promotion on the attitudes of

parents and children toward school. California Journal of Elementary Education, 21, 29-41. SANDOVAL, J., & HUGHES, G. P. (1981). Success in nonpromoted first grade children, Final report. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service #ED 212371. SAUNDERS, C. M. (1941). Promotion or failure for the elementary school pupil? New York: Teachers

College, Columbia University. SCOTT, B. A,, & AMES, L. B. (1969). Improving academic, personal and social adjustment in selected

primary-school repeaters. Elementary School Journal, 69, 43 1-439. SOLEM, M. R. (1981).

Psychology, 70, 169-177.

Junior first grade: A year to get ready. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 283-284.