Looking at most meta-analyses, you will see that repeating a year has an adverse effect. The EEF Toolkit also shows that repeating a year is a costly measure with an average negative effect. But this approach remains popular, and the idea is simple: children who, for example, cannot read well enough in the third grade, cannot move on to the fourth. This gives them the chance to catch up. That is, for example, the reasoning behind the so-called “third-grade retention policies” in the US. But what if the effect of such a policy is not in repeating the year itself?
A new study from Michigan, conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania, is heating up the debate. The researchers looked at the impact of a reading law that theoretically required third-graders who failed a reading test to repeat a year. In practice, however, only 3.4 per cent of students who scored just below the bar were required to repeat a year. And yet, the children who were “flagged” for repeating a year—that is, whose parents received a letter saying they might have to repeat a year—performed better on both reading and math tests the following year, on average.
The gain? Relatively modest – about 0.045 standard deviations on reading – but significant. And more importantly, even in schools that didn’t have anyone repeat a year, the researchers saw the same effect. That’s quite remarkable because it goes against the assumption that only repeating a year makes a difference. So what does happen?
Apparently, such policy systems trigger a whole package of reactions. Parents who receive a letter about the possibility of repeating a grade sound the alarm. Schools provide extra reading support. Teachers take more account of students who scored below the bar. And all of this even if the student continues to the fourth grade.
The researchers warn against a classic fallacy in education policy: We measure the effect of a measure but forget to look at the broader mechanism. Repeating a year in itself seems to play a smaller role in this case than was thought. The real lever? Intensive guidance, parents who get involved, and teachers who become alert. In jargon, it is a policy effect without direct policy implementation.
That makes the study relevant, even outside the US. In countries where repeating a year is becoming rarer but concerns about low literacy are growing, this research suggests an alternative path. Instead of opting for the blunt axe of repeating a year, policymakers could focus on signalling and support, without the social and logistical cost of repeating a year.
Or as the authors themselves write: perhaps it is time to shift our attention. Not to whether we should let children stay in the same grade, but what is set in motion as soon as we make that threat explicit.
Abstract of the working paper :
State laws that mandate in-grade retention for struggling readers are widespread in the US, covering 34% of public-school third graders in 2023-24. This study investigates the impacts of Michigan’s third-grade reading law on subsequent test scores and school progress outcomes for the 2020-21 and 2021-22 third-grade cohorts. Using a regression discontinuity (RD) design, we find that being flagged for retention increases students’ reading scores in the next school year by 0.045 standard deviations (SD)—a modest but meaningful impact. Because being flagged increases the likelihood of actually being retained by only 3.4 percentage points, the implied effect of retention itself under standard “fuzzy” RD assumptions would be an implausibly large 1.3 SD. This result suggests flagging may affect outcomes via mechanisms other than just retention, a violation of the exclusion restriction. Indeed, we estimate similar effects even in districts that retain no students. Survey evidence suggests flagged students receive more intensive reading support even if they are not retained. Our findings suggest retention may be a much less important component of literacy reforms than previously understood. Finally, given the similarity between Michigan’s reading law and those in other states, our findings raise concerns about potential bias in previously estimated retention effects.