Abstract
Although grade retention may be consequential for a number of important educational and socioeconomic outcomes, we know surprisingly little about the actual rate at which students are made to repeat grades. We build on Hauser, Frederick, and Andrew’s (2007) measure of grade retention using data from the 1995 through 2010 Current Population Surveys. We make technical improvements to their measure; provide more recent estimates; and validate the measure against external criteria. Our measure describes large disparities in grade retention rates by sex, race/ethnicity, geographic locale, and students’ socioeconomic circumstances. However, both absolute retention rates and disparities in retention rates have declined markedly since 2005. We conclude by describing how our measures might be used to model the impact of economic and policy contexts on grade retention rates.
Grade retention—having a student repeat a grade in school due to a lack of academic progress—is a familiar but controversial educational practice in the United States. Although we argue below that we know far too little about how often grade retention occurs, the practice may be consequential for a variety of outcomes. Retaining a student in grade may or may not impact students’ academic achievement (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2003; Hong & Raudenbush, 2005; Hong & Yu, 2007; Jacob & Lefgren, 2004; Mariano & Martorell, 2013). It is equally unclear whether retention impacts students’ chances of graduating from high school or of attending college (Allen, Chen, Willson, & Hughes, 2009; Andrew, Forthcoming; Jacob & Lefgren, 2004; Jimerson, 2001; Ou & Reynolds, 2010).
Ambiguity in the literature is at least partly predicated on issues related to the measurement of grade retention. For example, some studies limited to measures of grade retention in early grades come to different conclusions about its impacts on high school completion than other studies limited to measures of grade retention in later grades (Andrew, Forthcoming; Jacob & Lefgren, 2004; Ou & Reynolds, 2010). Consistent measures of grade retention at different points in the educational career and across cohorts of students would help solve such empirical ambiguity. For all its familiarity, reliable and consistent measures of grade retention over time for the national student body and subgroups of that body are difficult to come by.
In this paper, we describe an improved method of measuring individual students’ retention in grade at different points in the educational career and across cohorts of students using readily available national data from the Current Population Survey (CPS). Our method was first introduced by Hauser, Frederick, and Andrew (2007); see also Frederick & Hauser (2008). We offer a number of technical improvements, provide estimates for a more recent and wider range of years, and validate the resulting measure against administrative record data. Our estimates provide reliable, student-level estimates of grade retention rates for a sample that allows disaggregated results by grade, by student-level socioeconomic and demographic variables, and by geography. Although our goal in this paper is to describe and validate our measure and to report descriptive patterns of grade retention in recent years, our measure can be used in future research to model grade retention as a function of student-level and policy variables and to answer important questions about who is retained and the implications of such retentions for later outcomes.
We begin by reviewing currently available methods for quantifying the retention rate. We then describe our method and data. Next we present descriptive findings about grade retention rates based on univariate and multivariate (logistic regression) techniques. Finally, we validate our measure by comparing rates to those from other data resources.
How Many Students Are Retained?
In a perfect world, all states would report grade-specific retention rates at the end of each academic year and they would use data and measures that are comparable across states and over time. Unfortunately, most states do not report retention rates at all; those that do use quite different methods for calculating them (Warren & Saliba, 2012). Consequently, researchers and policy analysts have typically made do with other sources of information.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has conducted several large longitudinal studies of single cohorts of students that have been used to study the correlates of retention (e.g., Hong & Raudenbush, 2005; Hong & Yu, 2007; Rumberger & Larson, 1998; Stearns, Moller, Blau, & Potochnick, 2007). Studies beginning with high school-aged students (e.g., High School & Beyond) ask retrospective questions about elementary grade retention; the validity of these retrospective reports is not clear. Studies beginning with younger students (e.g., the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study) allow for prospective retention reports—but only through the early grades. Most importantly, all of the NCES studies suffer from sampling and attrition biases and each can only speak to the experiences of single cohorts of students. What is more, these longitudinal surveys are fielded only about every 10 years or so. For these reasons, NCES longitudinal surveys are not a good way to monitor grade retention rates on an ongoing basis.
In several different years the CPS and the National Household Education Survey have included retrospective questions about people’s previous experiences with retention (Child Trends, 2013). Such measures are available only at widely spaced intervals, and the quality of such retrospective information is unknown.
Warren and Saliba (2012) used information about enrollments and population size to calculate national and state-level retention rates for several academic years. Their estimates closely mirrored states’ reported rates based on longitudinal student tracking systems. While useful for aggregate, descriptive purposes, their state-level rates do not facilitate analyses of individual students’ chances of being retained. Their rates also cannot be disaggregated by students’ social, economic, or demographic characteristics.
Several scholars have used proxies for retention based on the distribution of students’ grades of enrollment conditional on their ages (e.g., Bianchi, 1984; Frederick & Hauser, 2008; Hauser et al., 2007; Hauser, Pager, & Simmons, 2004; Heubert & Hauser, 1999). These proxies begin by observing whether students are enrolled in a grade below that which is modal for their age. Retention rates are inferred by subtracting the percentage of students below the model grade for their age in one year from the percentage below the model grade for their age the previous grade in the previous year. For example, if 6% of eight year olds were enrolled below their model grade (third grade) in the fall of Year X and 5% of seven year olds were enrolled below their modal grade (second grade) in the fall of Year X-1, then we would infer a 1% second grade retention rate at the end of Year X.
Because both age and grade of enrollment are observed annually in the CPS since 1968 and the American Community Survey (ACS) since 2008, it is thus possible to produce this measure at the national level, in each year since the late 1960s, and for broad subgroups of students (e.g., by students’ race/ethnicity). However, such measures can only be used to describe aggregate rates of retention—they cannot be used to infer which students were actually retained. If we know (to continue the above example) that 1% of second graders were retained, we cannot know which individual students were retained. This prevents subsequent analyses that model the individual- and macro-level predictors of this educational practice. This measure also suffers from a few conceptual problems. First, there are typically two modal ages for each grade (and thus two modal grades for each age). Second, changes over time in the ages at which students start school will influence inferred retention rates. These issues raise questions about the validity of empirical patterns based on this measure.
Hauser, Frederick, and Andrew (2007) first developed student-level indicators of grade retention using CPS data. The October Supplement to the CPS measures (a) the grade in which students are currently enrolled and (b) the grade in which they were enrolled last year. By cross-classifying these two variables, Hauser, Frederick, and Andrew (2007) inferred which individual students did not progress normally from one grade to the next across years. Although no other researchers have made use of this CPS measure, we think it is potentially useful in a number of respects. First, it can be produced annually going back to 1995 and going forward indefinitely. Second, the CPS sample is large enough to report retention rates separately for subgroups of students. Third, unlike measures like “below modal grade for age,” Hauser, Frederick, and Andrew’s (2007) method can identify which individual students were retained (and thus facilitate models of retention).
Although we think the Hauser, Frederick, and Andrew (2007) method for measuring grade retention rates is potentially useful, Hauser and colleagues neither (a) address some important technical issues nor (b) validate their rates against information external to the CPS. In this paper we make a number of technical improvements to this method; update descriptive results through 2010; and validate the measure against external information.
Data and Measures
The CPS—conducted jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics—is representative of the civilian, household-based population of the United States. In recent years, each monthly CPS has included about 140,000 individuals living in about 60,000 households. Occupants of sampled households are interviewed in four consecutive months, are rotated out of the panel for eight months, and are then re-interviewed in four consecutive months. Because the CPS samples housing units, not people, individuals who move out of CPS households are not followed and new people who subsequently move into CPS households are included in the panel.
The basic monthly CPS survey gathers demographic data and extensive information about labor force activities, occupation and industry, and unemployment for all residents. In most months the CPS also includes a topical supplement. Since 1968, the October supplement has gathered additional information about school enrollment and educational experiences; this information includes the grade or level of school that currently enrolled individuals are attending. Since 1995, the October Supplement has also included questions about enrollment in the preceding October; this provides information about the grade or level of schooling that individuals were attending one year earlier.
Following Hauser, Frederick, and Andrew (2007), our measure of retention in the gth grade is based on a comparison of grade of enrollment across consecutive years. Among students attending grade g last year, those attending grade g this year have been retained; those attending grade g+1 have made normal progress; and those attending grade g+2 have skipped a grade. In Table 1, we cross-classify grade of enrollment last year by grade of enrollment this year for the 252,128 people who were enrolled in grades 1 through 9 in the year preceding their interviews in 1995 through 2010. As shown in Table 1, the vast majority of students make normal progress, and only a very small number skip grades.
Table 1.
Cross-Classification of Students’ Grade of Enrollment THIS Year by their Grade of Enrollment LAST Year, 1995–2010
|
Note: Analysis based on 1995–2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Data. Sample excludes children with imputed values on grade of enrollment this year or last year. Analyses weighted by the CPS October Supplement Weight (after normalizing the weight to have a mean of zero).
We make a number of important technical improvements in our measure as compared to that produced by Hauser, Frederick, and Andrew (2007). First, we exclude students whose grade of enrollment (this year and/or last year) was not actually reported by the CPS respondent. In about one in every seven cases, the CPS imputed values using procedures that are not well documented, that frequently produce implausible values, and that consequently create the impression that many students skipped multiple grades or even moved backward in grade across years. Second, we exclude some cases in which grade of enrollment (this year and/or last year) was reported but appears to be implausible (i.e., because the student appears to skip many grades or move backward in grade). Close inspection of the data leads us to believe that some respondents misunderstand response options (e.g., confusing “first grade” for “first year of high school”). In other cases it appears that interviewers confuse response options and the computer codes that represent them (e.g., in some years the numeric code “5” represents first grade).
In our analyses we include individuals currently enrolled in grades 1 through 10 in the 1995 through 2010 CPS; 10th graders are only included to assess the 9th grade retention rate. We do not produce kindergarten retention rates because many students enroll in kindergarten in multiple years despite not being retained. We exclude people whose current or previous grade of enrollment was imputed (for reasons described above) and we exclude the small percentage of cases in which students appear to skip multiple grades or move backward in grade. Students who skip a single grade are counted for our purposes as making normal progress. All of our analyses are weighed by the CPS October Supplement weight after renormalizing the weight to have a mean of zero.
Results
Descriptive Patterns by Grade
In Table 2 we pool across academic years 1994–1995 through 2009–2010 and report first- through ninth-grade retention rates for the full sample; for boys and girls; and for non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. Figure 1 depicts grade-level specific retention rates for the full sample; by sex; by race/ethnicity; by nativity (i.e., for immigrant children, for U.S.-born children of immigrants, and for U.S.-born children of U.S.-born parents); by the highest level of either parent’s schooling (i.e., for children whose best-educated parent was a high school dropout, a high school graduate, a college attendee, or a college completer); by region of the country (i.e., northeast, south, Midwest, or west); and by urbanicity (i.e., urban, rural, and suburban residence). The values underlying Figure 1 are provided in Table 2 and Appendix Tables 1 and 2.
Table 2.
1st through 9th Grade Retention Rates, by Demographic Variables, Academic Years 1994–1995 through 2009–2010
| Full Sample | SEX
|
RACE/ETHNICITY
|
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boys | Girls | Non-Hispanic Whites | Non-Hispanic Blacks | Hispanics | |||
| 1st grade | 28,793 | 6.2% | 6.5% | 5.9% | 5.4% | 8.7% | 6.9% |
| 2nd grade | 27,568 | 2.1% | 2.2% | 1.9% | 1.8% | 3.0% | 2.4% |
| 3rd grade | 27,905 | 1.8% | 2.0% | 1.6% | 1.3% | 3.8% | 2.1% |
| 4th grade | 27,831 | 1.5% | 1.5% | 1.5% | 1.2% | 2.5% | 2.0% |
| 5th grade | 27,829 | 1.4% | 1.4% | 1.3% | 1.2% | 2.0% | 1.5% |
| 6th grade | 27,473 | 1.7% | 1.9% | 1.5% | 1.3% | 3.1% | 2.0% |
| 7th grade | 27,584 | 2.1% | 2.3% | 1.8% | 1.7% | 3.5% | 2.3% |
| 8th grade | 28,464 | 1.9% | 2.2% | 1.6% | 1.6% | 3.1% | 2.2% |
| 9th grade | 28,681 | 2.9% | 3.5% | 2.2% | 2.2% | 4.1% | 4.2% |
| Total | 2.4% | 2.6% | 2.2% | 2.0% | 3.8% | 2.8% | |
| n | 252,128 | 129,215 | 122,913 | 167,620 | 30,093 | 36,922 | |
Note: Analysis based on 1995–2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Data. Sample excludes children with imputed values on grade of enrollment this year or last year. Analyses weighted by the CPS October Supplement Weight.
Figure 1.
1st through 9th Grade Retention Rates, by Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Variables, 1995–2010
Note: Analysis based on 1995–2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Data. Sample excludes children with imputed values on grade of enrollment this year or last year. Analyses weighted by the CPS October Supplement Weight.
Appendix Table 1.
1st through 9th Grade Retention Rates, by Family Socioeconomic Variables, 1995–2010
| Full Sample | HIGHEST PARENT’S EDUCATION
|
FAMILY STRUCTURE
|
NATIVITY
|
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High School Dropout | High School Graduate | Some College | BA or More | Two Parents | One Parent | Third+ Generation | Second Generation | Immigrant Children | |||
| 1st grade | 27,568 | 6.2% | 9.0% | 7.4% | 5.6% | 4.3% | 5.4% | 7.8% | 6.2% | 6.1% | 6.4% |
| 2nd grade | 27,905 | 2.1% | 3.3% | 2.4% | 1.8% | 1.5% | 1.7% | 2.9% | 2.1% | 2.1% | 2.0% |
| 3rd grade | 27,831 | 1.8% | 3.4% | 2.3% | 1.6% | 1.0% | 1.4% | 2.6% | 1.7% | 1.9% | 2.6% |
| 4th grade | 27,829 | 1.5% | 2.6% | 1.9% | 1.4% | 0.7% | 1.4% | 1.8% | 1.5% | 1.7% | 1.8% |
| 5th grade | 27,473 | 1.4% | 2.3% | 1.5% | 1.3% | 0.8% | 1.2% | 1.7% | 1.3% | 1.4% | 2.2% |
| 6th grade | 27,584 | 1.7% | 3.0% | 1.9% | 1.5% | 1.1% | 1.3% | 2.6% | 1.6% | 2.0% | 1.9% |
| 7th grade | 28,464 | 2.1% | 3.1% | 2.7% | 1.8% | 1.2% | 1.7% | 2.9% | 2.1% | 2.1% | 2.0% |
| 8th grade | 28,681 | 1.9% | 2.5% | 2.1% | 1.9% | 1.3% | 1.5% | 2.8% | 1.9% | 1.8% | 2.1% |
| 9th grade | 2.9% | 5.0% | 3.8% | 2.5% | 1.1% | 2.0% | 4.5% | 2.8% | 3.1% | 3.4% | |
| Total | 2.4% | 3.8% | 2.9% | 2.2% | 1.5% | 2.0% % | 3.3% | 2.4% | 2.5% | 2.6% | |
| n | 252,128 | 23,734 | 61,970 | 75,547 | 80,213 | 173,170 | 78,958 | 204,120 | 34,606 | 12,287 | |
Note: Analysis based on 1995–2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Data. Sample excludes children with imputed values on grade of enrollment this year or last year. Analyses weighted by the CPS October Supplement Weight.
Appendix Table 2.
1st through 9th Grade Retention Rates, by Geographic Variables, 1995–2010
| Full Sample | REGION
|
URBANICITY
|
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Midwest | Northeast | South | West | Urban | Suburban | Rural | |||
| 1st grade | 27,568 | 6.2% | 4.7% | 6.5% | 7.7% | 5.1% | 6.6% | 5.9% | 6.3% |
| 2nd grade | 27,905 | 2.1% | 1.5% | 2.1% | 2.5% | 1.8% | 2.2% | 1.9% | 2.5% |
| 3rd grade | 27,831 | 1.8% | 1.1% | 1.8% | 2.6% | 1.2% | 2.0% | 1.8% | 1.7% |
| 4th grade | 27,829 | 1.5% | 1.1% | 1.0% | 2.2% | 1.2% | 1.7% | 1.4% | 1.4% |
| 5th grade | 27,473 | 1.4% | 1.1% | 1.2% | 1.6% | 1.4% | 1.2% | 1.5% | 1.5% |
| 6th grade | 27,584 | 1.7% | 1.2% | 1.7% | 2.2% | 1.4% | 1.9% | 1.5% | 1.7% |
| 7th grade | 28,464 | 2.1% | 1.2% | 2.2% | 2.9% | 1.6% | 2.3% | 1.8% | 2.7% |
| 8th grade | 28,681 | 1.9% | 1.5% | 1.8% | 2.8% | 1.2% | 1.8% | 2.1% | 2.1% |
| 9th grade | 2.9% | 1.9% | 3.1% | 3.9% | 2.1% | 3.9% | 2.2% | 2.5% | |
| Total | 2.4% | 1.7% | 2.4% | 3.2% | 1.9% | 2.7% | 2.2% | 2.5% | |
| n | 252,128 | 62,374 | 50,767 | 73,285 | 65,702 | 77,543 | 91,505 | 47,667 | |
Note: Analysis based on 1995–2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Data. Sample excludes children with imputed values on grade of enrollment this year or last year. Analyses weighted by the CPS October Supplement Weight.
Grade retention rates are highest in first grade; they are also high in grade nine. About 2.4% of all students were retained, including about 6.2% of first graders. Retention rates are higher among boys than among girls, especially in later grades (Table 2; Panel A of Figure 1); are highest among blacks and Hispanics (Table 2; Panel B of Figure 1); and are higher among children who were born outside of the United States (Panel C of Figure 1). They are also higher among children of less well-educated parents (Panel D); and among children in the South and Northeast (Panel D). The grade-specific patterns—with highest retention rates in first grade and high retention rates in ninth grade—hold among all groups of students and in all geographic areas.
Descriptive Patterns by Year
In Table 3 we pool across grades 1 through 9 and report total retention rates each academic year between 1994–1995 and 2009–2010 for the full sample; for boys and girls; and for non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. Figure 2 depicts grade-level specific retention rates for the full sample; by sex; by race/ethnicity; by nativity; by the highest level of either parent’s schooling; by region of the country; and by urbanicity. The values used to produce Figure 2 are provided in Table 3 and Appendix Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3.
Annual Retention Rates, by Demographic Variables, Academic Years 1995–2010
| Full Sample | SEX
|
RACE/ETHNICITY
|
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boys | Girls | Non-Hispanic Whites | Non-Hispanic Blacks | Hispanics | |||
| 1994–1995 | 15,711 | 2.7% | 2.8% | 2.5% | 2.2% | 4.4% | 3.0% |
| 1995–1996 | 15,588 | 2.2% | 2.6% | 1.8% | 1.7% | 3.7% | 2.9% |
| 1996–1997 | 15,712 | 2.3% | 2.7% | 1.9% | 1.8% | 4.3% | 2.8% |
| 1997–1998 | 16,272 | 2.6% | 2.7% | 2.4% | 2.1% | 3.8% | 3.2% |
| 1998–1999 | 16,009 | 2.7% | 3.4% | 2.0% | 2.4% | 3.9% | 3.3% |
| 1999–2000 | 16,390 | 2.9% | 3.5% | 2.3% | 2.1% | 4.9% | 3.8% |
| 2000–2001 | 16,203 | 2.7% | 2.9% | 2.5% | 2.1% | 4.9% | 3.7% |
| 2001–2002 | 15,471 | 2.6% | 2.9% | 2.3% | 2.2% | 3.7% | 3.1% |
| 2002–2003 | 15,467 | 2.9% | 3.0% | 2.8% | 2.2% | 4.7% | 4.0% |
| 2003–2004 | 16,003 | 2.8% | 3.0% | 2.6% | 2.3% | 4.1% | 3.4% |
| 2004–2005 | 15,940 | 2.9% | 2.9% | 2.9% | 2.3% | 4.9% | 3.3% |
| 2005–2006 | 15,600 | 2.5% | 2.6% | 2.3% | 2.1% | 3.1% | 3.0% |
| 2006–2007 | 15,480 | 1.9% | 2.0% | 1.8% | 1.7% | 2.5% | 2.5% |
| 2007–2008 | 15,544 | 1.5% | 1.7% | 1.3% | 1.3% | 2.7% | 1.6% |
| 2008–2009 | 15,312 | 1.6% | 1.7% | 1.5% | 1.4% | 2.3% | 1.7% |
| 2009–2010 | 15,426 | 1.5% | 1.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | 2.0% | 1.8% |
| Total | 2.4% | 2.6% | 2.2% | 2.0% | 3.8% | 2.9% | |
| n | 252,128 | 129,215 | 122,913 | 167,620 | 30,093 | 36,922 | |
Note: Analysis based on 1995–2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Data. Sample excludes children with imputed values on grade of enrollment this year or last year. Analyses weighted by the CPS October Supplement Weight.
Figure 2.
Annual Retention Rates, by Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Variables, 1995–2010
Note: Analysis based on 1995–2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Data. Sample excludes children with imputed values on grade of enrollment this year or last year. Analyses weighted by the CPS October Supplement Weight.
Appendix Table 3.
Annual Retention Rates, by Family Socioeconomic Variables, Academic Years 1994–1995 through 2009–2010
| Full Sample | HIGHEST PARENT’S EDUCATION
|
FAMILY STRUCTURE
|
NATIVITY
|
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High School Dropout | High School Graduate | Some College | BA or More | Two Parents | One Parent | Third+ Generation | Second Generation | Immigrant Children | |||
| 1994–1995 | 15,711 | 2.7% | 4.3% | 3.0% | 2.2% | 1.9% | 2.2% | 3.7% | 2.7% | 2.1% | 4.0% |
| 1995–1996 | 15,588 | 2.2% | 4.0% | 2.3% | 2.1% | 1.1% | 1.7% | 3.4% | 2.1% | 1.8% | 3.7% |
| 1996–1997 | 15,714 | 2.3% | 3.5% | 3.0% | 2.1% | 1.2% | 1.7% | 3.5% | 2.3% | 2.5% | 1.8% |
| 1997–1998 | 16,272 | 2.6% | 3.9% | 2.8% | 2.4% | 1.8% | 2.4% | 2.9% | 2.5% | 3.1% | 2.7% |
| 1998–1999 | 16,009 | 2.7% | 4.5% | 3.8% | 2.1% | 1.4% | 2.2% | 3.9% | 2.7% | 3.1% | 2.2% |
| 1999–2000 | 16,390 | 2.9% | 4.9% | 3.3% | 2.7% | 1.8% | 2.4% | 4.0% | 2.8% | 3.4% | 2.7% |
| 2000–2001 | 16,203 | 2.7% | 4.7% | 3.6% | 2.6% | 1.1% | 1.8% | 4.6% | 2.8% | 2.8% | 2.3% |
| 2001–2002 | 15,471 | 2.6% | 4.0% | 2.7% | 2.8% | 1.5% | 2.3% | 3.3% | 2.5% | 2.5% | 4.8% |
| 2002–2003 | 15,467 | 2.9% | 5.0% | 3.3% | 2.7% | 2.0% | 2.3% | 4.3% | 2.8% | 3.7% | 3.0% |
| 2003–2004 | 16,003 | 2.8% | 4.8% | 3.5% | 2.2% | 1.9% | 2.4% | 3.9% | 2.7% | 3.0% | 3.5% |
| 2004–2005 | 15,940 | 2.9% | 5.0% | 3.3% | 2.1% | 2.4% | 2.4% | 4.0% | 2.9% | 2.8% | 2.2% |
| 2005–2006 | 15,600 | 2.5% | 2.8% | 3.2% | 2.4% | 1.7% | 2.2% | 3.1% | 2.4% | 2.8% | 2.6% |
| 2006–2007 | 15,480 | 1.9% | 2.5% | 2.7% | 1.9% | 1.0% | 1.5% | 2.7% | 1.9% | 2.2% | 1.7% |
| 2007–2008 | 15,544 | 1.5% | 2.2% | 1.8% | 1.2% | 1.0% | 1.2% | 2.2% | 1.6% | 1.2% | 1.9% |
| 2008–2009 | 15,312 | 1.6% | 2.5% | 1.9% | 1.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | 2.1% | 1.7% | 1.5% | 0.9% |
| 2009–2010 | 15,426 | 1.5% | 1.8% | 2.3% | 1.3% | 1.0% | 1.4% | 1.9% | 1.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% |
| Total | 2.4% | 3.8% | 2.9% | 2.2% | 1.5% | 2.0% | 3.3% | 2.4% | 2.5% | 2.6% | |
| n | 252,128 | 23,734 | 61,970 | 75,547 | 80,213 | 173,170 | 78,958 | 204,120 | 34,606 | 12,287 | |
Note: Analysis based on 1995–2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Data. Sample excludes children with imputed values on grade of enrollment this year or last year. Analyses weighted by the CPS October Supplement Weight.
Appendix Table 4.
Annual Retention Rates, by Geographic Variables, Academic Years 1994–1995 through 2009–2010
| Full Sample | REGION
|
URBANICITY
|
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Midwest | Northeast | South | West | Urban | Suburban | Rural | |||
| 1994–1995 | 15,711 | 2.7% | 1.9% | 2.2% | 3.7% | 2.2% | 2.6% | 2.8% | 0.0% |
| 1995–1996 | 15,588 | 2.2% | 1.9% | 2.7% | 2.8% | 1.2% | 2.2% | 2.2% | 0.0% |
| 1996–1997 | 15,712 | 2.3% | 1.8% | 2.2% | 3.1% | 1.6% | 2.1% | 2.9% | 5.9% |
| 1997–1998 | 16,272 | 2.6% | 2.0% | 2.9% | 3.2% | 1.9% | 3.1% | 2.5% | 2.4% |
| 1998–1999 | 16,009 | 2.7% | 2.1% | 2.6% | 3.8% | 2.0% | 3.5% | 2.3% | 2.9% |
| 1999–2000 | 16,390 | 2.9% | 2.7% | 2.5% | 3.9% | 2.0% | 4.0% | 2.3% | 3.5% |
| 2000–2001 | 16,203 | 2.7% | 1.8% | 3.3% | 3.5% | 2.2% | 3.9% | 2.2% | 2.7% |
| 2001–2002 | 15,471 | 2.6% | 1.9% | 2.9% | 3.0% | 2.6% | 3.1% | 2.5% | 2.6% |
| 2002–2003 | 15,467 | 2.9% | 1.6% | 3.3% | 3.7% | 2.9% | 3.5% | 3.0% | 2.7% |
| 2003–2004 | 16,003 | 2.8% | 1.7% | 2.2% | 4.2% | 2.2% | 2.8% | 2.7% | 3.4% |
| 2004–2005 | 15,940 | 2.9% | 2.3% | 3.1% | 3.7% | 2.1% | 4.0% | 2.4% | 2.8% |
| 2005–2006 | 15,600 | 2.5% | 1.4% | 2.1% | 3.4% | 2.3% | 2.9% | 2.1% | 2.7% |
| 2006–2007 | 15,480 | 1.9% | 1.1% | 1.5% | 2.8% | 1.6% | 1.9% | 1.8% | 1.9% |
| 2007–2008 | 15,544 | 1.5% | 0.8% | 1.6% | 2.2% | 1.0% | 1.9% | 1.4% | 1.2% |
| 2008–2009 | 15,312 | 1.6% | 1.0% | 1.3% | 2.1% | 1.6% | 1.7% | 1.7% | 1.7% |
| 2009–2010 | 15,426 | 1.5% | 0.9% | 1.8% | 2.1% | 1.0% | 1.9% | 1.5% | 1.4% |
| Total | 2.4% | 1.7% | 2.4% | 3.2% | 1.9% | 2.7% | 2.2% | 2.5% | |
| n | 252,128 | 62,374 | 50,767 | 73,285 | 65,702 | 77,543 | 91,505 | 47,667 | |
Note: Analysis based on 1995–2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Data. Sample excludes children with imputed values on grade of enrollment this year or last year. Analyses weighted by the CPS October Supplement Weight.
The patterns described in Table 2 and Figure 1—higher retention rates among boys, among blacks and Hispanics, among immigrant children, among children of less well-educated parents, and among urban children—hold in each academic year between 1994–1995 and 2009–2010. However, as shown in Figure 2, retention rates declined substantially and steadily after the 2004–2005 academic year. In 2004–2005, 2.9% of all first through ninth graders were retained. By 2009–2010, the retention rate had fallen by about half to 1.5%. The decline in retention rates is observed among all groups of students and in all geographic areas, but may be most pronounced among groups of students with previously higher retention rates. As a result, group differences in retention rates (e.g., by race/ethnicity, parental education, region) also declined. That is, Figure 2 shows both a decline in overall retention rates and a decline in inequality in retention rates. We leave it to others to explain these notable declines; we suspect that they may have to do with changes in states’ accountability policies in conjunction with newly available information from states’ longitudinal student tracking systems.
Multivariate Patterns
In Table 4, we report the results of logistic regression models predicting retention in grades 1 through 9 (Model 1), in grade 1 (Model 2), in grades 2 through 8 (Model 3), and in grade 9 (Model 4); in these models, we pool across academic years 1994–1995 through 2009–2010 and include year and year2 terms; the quadratic term allows the trend in rates to be non-linear. In these descriptive models the independent variables include students’ sex, race/ethnicity, highest parent’s education, family structure, nativity, urbanicity, region, and year of observation. All else constant, boys are more likely to be retained at each grade level; non-Hispanic blacks are more likely to be retained in earlier grades; children are less likely to be retained when their parents completed more schooling and are married; and retention rates at all grade levels are substantially higher in the southern and northeastern states. Consistent with Table 3, predicted values from these models suggest that retention rates were highest in about 2004–2005 and have fallen sharply since then. Models that include interaction terms between independent variables and year and year2 are generally not statistically significant and detract from model fit. This suggests that the decline in retention rates since about 2004–2005 has occurred across the board, and has not been especially pronounced in any region or population subgroups.
Table 4.
Logistic Regression Models of Grade Retention, by Grade, 1995–2010
| Model 1
|
Model 2
|
Model 3
|
Model 4
|
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grades 1–9
|
Grade 1
|
Grades 2–8
|
Grade 9
|
|||||
| exp(b) | (s.e.) | exp(b) | (s.e.) | exp(b) | (s.e.) | exp(b) | (s.e.) | |
| Sex (Reference Category: Female) | ||||||||
| Male | 1.23 | (0.04) *** | 1.11 | (0.06) | 1.22 | (0.05) *** | 1.60 | (0.14) ** |
| Race/Ethnicity (Reference Category: Non-Hispanic Whites) | ||||||||
| Non-Hispanic Blacks | 1.35 | (0.06) *** | 1.29 | (0.11) * | 1.48 | (0.08) *** | 0.98 | (0.12) |
| Hispanics | 1.20 | (0.06) ** | 1.24 | (0.12) | 1.08 | (0.07) | 1.44 | (0.19) |
| All Others | 1.20 | (0.09) * | 1.32 | (0.17) | 1.05 | (0.10) | 1.44 | (0.27) |
| Highest Parent’s Education (Reference Category: College Graduate) | ||||||||
| H.S. Dropout | 2.18 | (0.12) *** | 1.90 | (0.20) ** | 2.22 | (0.17) *** | 3.45 | (0.58) * |
| H.S. Graduate | 1.73 | (0.08) *** | 1.55 | (0.13) ** | 1.69 | (0.10) *** | 2.90 | (0.40) ** |
| Some College | 1.36 | (0.06) *** | 1.22 | (0.10) * | 1.36 | (0.08) *** | 2.08 | (0.30) * |
| Unknown | 2.07 | (0.15) *** | 1.77 | (0.26) * | 2.00 | (0.19) *** | 3.77 | (0.69) |
| Family Structure (Reference Category: Two Parent Family) | ||||||||
| Single Parent Family | 1.26 | (0.04) *** | 1.15 | (0.08) | 1.25 | (0.06) *** | 1.55 | (0.15) ** |
| Nativity (Reference Category: Both Parents Born in U.S.) | ||||||||
| Immigrant Children | 0.93 | (0.07) | 0.88 | (0.14) | 1.10 | (0.10) | 0.80 | (0.14) |
| Second Generation | 0.93 | (0.05) | 0.84 | (0.08) * | 0.99 | (0.07) | 0.79 | (0.11) * |
| Unknown | 0.58 | (0.17) ** | 0.80 | (0.37) | 0.57 | (0.21) ** | 0.03 | (0.03) *** |
| Urbanicity (Reference Category: Suburban) | ||||||||
| Rural | 0.98 | (0.05) | 0.95 | (0.08) | 1.00 | (0.06) | 0.95 | (0.13) |
| Urban | 1.07 | (0.04) | 1.00 | (0.07) | 1.00 | (0.05) | 1.55 | (0.17) ** |
| Unknown | 0.87 | (0.04) ** | 0.86 | (0.09) | 0.84 | (0.06) ** | 1.05 | (0.15) |
| Region (Reference Category: Midwest) | ||||||||
| Northeast | 1.40 | (0.07) *** | 1.41 | (0.13) ** | 1.36 | (0.09) ** | 1.59 | (0.22) |
| South | 1.75 | (0.07) *** | 1.61 | (0.13) *** | 1.79 | (0.10) *** | 1.96 | (0.24) ** |
| West | 1.05 | (0.05) | 1.04 | (0.10) | 1.09 | (0.08) | 0.97 | (0.14) |
| Time | ||||||||
| Year - 1995 | 1.12 | (0.02) *** | 1.16 | (0.03) *** | 1.11 | (0.02) *** | 1.10 | (0.04) |
| (Year - 1995)2 | 0.99 | (0.00) *** | 0.99 | (0.00) *** | 0.99 | (0.00) *** | 0.99 | (0.00) ** |
| Constant | 0.01 | (0.00) *** | 0.03 | (0.00) *** | 0.01 | (0.00) *** | 0.00 | (0.00) *** |
| N | 252,128 | 28,302 | 195,072 | 28,754 | ||||
See text for description of sample and measures. All analyses weighted by CPS supplement weight.
p < 0.001;
p < 0.01;
p < 0.05
Validating Our Rates against External Criteria
How do the rates we have produced compare to other recent estimates? We perform two types of comparisons. First, we compare our first through eighth grade CPS-based retention rates to Warren and Saliba’s (2012) retention rates for first through eighth grade for 2002–2003 through 2008–2009; Warren and Saliba (2012) did not produce ninth grade rates. Second, we consider whether the decline in grade retention rates that we observe since 2004–2005 using our CPS-based measure is also apparent in states’ reports of their retention rates.
In Figure 3 we compare our CPS-based measure (the thick black line) to Warren and Saliba’s (2012) measure (the thin gray line). In Panel A, we pool data on grades 1 through 8 and report retention rates for each year between 1994–95 and 2009–10; however, Warren and Saliba’s (2012) rates are only available for 2002–03 through 2008–09. In Panel B, we pool data across all available years and report retention rates separately for grades one through eight. In general, trends over time and across grades look very similar using either of these two rates. The downward trend in retention rates after 2004–05 is apparent using both. The advantage of our CPS-based rate, however, is that is simpler to produce, is available for more academic years, and is available at the level of individual students.
Figure 3.
Comparison of Alternate Grade Retention Rates, by Grade and Year
Note: CPS analyses based on 1995–2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Data, excluding children with imputed values on grade of enrollment this year or last year. The CPS analyses are weighted by the CPS October Supplement Weight.
In Figure 4 we depict trends in states’ first and ninth grade retention rates between 2002–03 and 2009–10. Annual, grade-specific rates are available on-line for Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In Figure 4, we report states’ reported retention rates; Panels A and B pertain to first and ninth grades, respectively. In every one of these states, first and ninth grade retention rates declined---sometimes substantially---after 2004–05; figures (not shown) for grades two through eight look similar. Although this evidence is limited to just seven states, it strongly suggests that the declines in retention rates that we observed in the CPS after 2004–05 are real and not an artifact of the way we have constructed the measure using CPS data.
Figure 4.
First and Ninth Grade Retention Rates: Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, 1995–96 through 2010–2011
Note: States are indicated by their postal abbreviations. Data are derived from information obtained from each state’s department of education website.
Future Uses of Our Measures
Our CPS-based measure of grade retention should be useful for researchers interested in the social, economic, and political predictors of grade retention. This includes the effects of family, economic, and policy changes on children’s educational progress across grades and how those effects vary by race-ethnicity, gender, nativity, and socioeconomic status (Guo, Brooks-Gunn, & Harris, 1996; Tillman, Guo, & Harris, 2006). The CPS includes detailed information about important family contexts in a given year such as poverty status, family composition, changes in earnings, sibling grade retention, and parental work and unemployment. For researchers interested in larger economic contexts, it is possible to link students’ observations to the unemployment rate, average earnings, and demographic characteristics of the metropolitan areas in which students live. It is also possible to link students’ records to state and regional education policies including school finance and testing and accountability policies as well as specific policies for retention and promotion (Corman, 2003). The measure we describe can be used to better understand the forces that shape retention rates; trends in those rates over time; regional variation in those rates; and inequality in retention practices across groups of students.
Conclusion
We view our measure as having immediate practical value. Neither the National Center for Education Statistics (e.g., in its annual statistic digests) nor any other federal agency or private foundation routinely reports grade retention rates in the United States. What Hauser, Pager and Simmons (2000: 11) said more than a decade ago is still true: “We doubt that governments currently make important policy decisions about any other social process with so little in the way of sound, basic, descriptive information.” To properly monitor educational outcomes and to design effective policy, we need to have a way of accurately quantifying grade retention rates and how they vary by grade, across social groups, and over time.
We also view our measure as having longer-term value for sociological and educational policy research on the factors that influence retention rates; on trends over time in those rates; and on the social, economic, demographic, and policy correlates of the practice. Without a student-level measure—based on a large, nationally-representative, annually-available data resource—such research has been quite limited in scope.
It will not surprise many people that retention rates are highest in grades one or nine, or that they are highest among boys, racial/ethnic minorities, in the South, or among less advantaged children. It may come as quite a surprise that absolute retention rates and social and regional inequalities in them have declined dramatically since 2004–05. Regardless which of these descriptive findings are surprising, having a reliable and routinely available student-level measure of retention will facilitate both a better understanding of the correlates of those rates and future efforts to reduce inequalities in them.
Footnotes
Paper prepared for presentation at the 2014 annual meetings of the Population Association of America. This project benefitted from support provided by the Minnesota Population Center, which receives core support (5R24HD041023) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The University of Minnesota’s Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program also provided generous support for this project. However, errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
Contributor Information
John Robert Warren, Department of Sociology, Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota.
Emily Hoffman, Law School, University of Chicago.
Megan Andrew, Department of Sociology, Center for Research on Educational Opportunity, Notre Dame University.
References
- Allen CS, Chen Q, Willson VL, Hughes JN. Quality of Research Design Moderates Effects of Grade Retention on Achievement: A Meta-Analytic, Multilevel Analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2009;31(4):480–499. doi: 10.3102/0162373709352239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Andrew M. The Scarring Effects of Primary-Grade Retention? A Study of Cumulative Advantage in the Educational Career. Social Forces Forthcoming. [Google Scholar]
- Bianchi S. Children’s Progress Through School: A Research Note. Sociology of Education. 1984;57:184–192. [Google Scholar]
- Child Trends. Indicators on Children and Youth: Children Who Repeated a Grade. Washington, D.C: Child Trends; 2013. http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=children-who-repeated-a-grade. [Google Scholar]
- Corman H. The Effects of State Policies, Individual Characteristics, Family Characteristics, and Neighbourhood Characteristics on Grade Repetition in the United States. Economics of Education Review. 2003;22(4):409–420. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00070-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Entwisle DR, Alexander KL, Olson LS. The First-Grade Transition in Life Course Perspective. In: Mortimer JT, Shanahan MJ, editors. Handbook of the Life Course. New York: Springer; 2003. pp. 229–250. [Google Scholar]
- Frederick CB, Hauser RM. Have We Put an End to Social Promotion? Changes in School Progress among Children Aged 6 to 17 from 1972 to 2005. Demography. 2008;45:719–740. doi: 10.1353/dem.0.0015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Guo G, Brooks-Gunn J, Harris KM. Parent’s Labor Force Attachment and Grade Retention among Urban Black Children. Sociology of Education. 1996;69:217–236. [Google Scholar]
- Hauser RM, Frederick CB, Andrew M. Grade Retention in the Age of Accountability. In: Gamoran A, editor. No Child Left Behind and the Poverty Gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Hauser RM, Pager DI, Simmons SJ. Race-Ethnicity, Social Background, and Grade Retention. Center for Demography and Ecology; Madison, WI: 2000. CDE Working Paper 2000–08. [Google Scholar]
- Hauser RM, Pager DI, Simmons SJ. Race-Ethnicity, Social Background, and Grade Retention. In: Walberg HJ, Reynolds AJ, Wang MC, editors. Can Unlike Students Learn Together? Grade Retention, Tracking, and Grouping. Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing; 2004. pp. 97–114. [Google Scholar]
- Heubert JP, Hauser RM. High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion and Graduation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Hong G, Raudenbush S. Effects of Kindergarten Retention Policy on Children’s Cognitive Growth in Reading and Mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2005;27(3):205–224. doi: 10.3102/01623737027003205. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hong G, Yu B. Early-grade retention and children’s reading and math learning in elementary years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2007;29(4):239–261. doi: 10.3102/0162373707309073. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Jacob B, Lefgren LJ. Remedial Education and Student Achievement: A Regression-Discontinuity Analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics. 2004;86(1):226–244. doi: 10.1162/003465304323023778. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Jimerson SR. Meta-Analysis of Grade Retention Research: Implications for Practice in the 21st Century. School Psychology Review. 2001;30(3):420–437. [Google Scholar]
- Mariano LT, Martorell P. The Academic Effects of Summer Instruction and Retention in New York City. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2013;35(1):96–117. doi: 10.3102/0162373712454327. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Ou SR, Reynolds AJ. Grade Retention, Postsecondary Education, and Public Aid Receipt. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2010;32(1):118–139. doi: 10.3102/0162373709354334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rumberger RW, Larson KA. Student Mobility and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout. American Journal of Education. 1998;107:1–35. [Google Scholar]
- Stearns E, Moller S, Blau J, Potochnick S. Staying Back and Dropping Out: The Relationship Between Grade Retention and School Dropout. Sociology of Education. 2007;80:210–240. [Google Scholar]
- Tillman KH, Guo G, Harris KM. Grade Retention among Immigrant Children. Social Science Research. 2006;35(1):129–156. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.07.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Warren JR, Saliba J. First- Through Eighth-Grade Retention Rates for All 50 States: A New Method and Initial Results. Educational Researcher. 2012;41(8):320–329. doi: 10.3102/0013189x12457813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]