Early grade retention — having a child repeat kindergarten or first grade rather than promoting them — is one of the most widely used responses to early underachievement, yet a causal study in Flanders found that repeaters would have scored higher in mathematics had they been promoted, with first-grade retention especially harmful for younger children. What remains open is why retention produces these effects, how it compares with alternative responses such as referral to special education, and which school-level conditions allow at-risk children to be supported effectively without retention. Later work, including a meta-analysis of 84 studies, established that average effects are near zero but vary systematically with institutional context, while leaving the causal pathways untested and the retention-versus-alternatives comparison unmade. The problem is to identify the mechanisms behind retention's effects, to quantify them against alternatives for comparable at-risk children, and to characterize the school conditions under which alternatives to retention work.

Background

Grade retention (also called grade repetition) is the practice of requiring a child to repeat a school year instead of moving up with their age group; the opposite practice of moving the child up regardless is often called social promotion. Retention is among the most heavily used and most contested remediation practices in school systems worldwide, with large cross-country differences in both its frequency and its cultural acceptance.

Because children are retained precisely because they are struggling, estimating the causal effect of retention is difficult: naive comparisons of retained and promoted children confound the effect of retention with the selection that led to it. Modern studies therefore invoke the assumption of exchangeability — that, conditional on measured pre-treatment covariates, retained and promoted children would have developed similarly — and estimate effects with propensity-score methods such as covariate balancing propensity score (CBPS) weighting, which reweights the comparison group so that retained and promoted children are balanced on all measured covariates.

In this framework, Vandecandelaere, Vansteelandt, De Fraine and Van Damme (2016) analyzed a large-scale Flemish longitudinal cohort and found that, within the population of children at risk of early retention, repeaters would have scored higher in mathematics had they been promoted each year instead, though this disadvantage diminished or disappeared over the longer term. The study also found effect modification — effects that differ across subgroups — by prior achievement and age: first-grade retention was more harmful for the mathematics development of younger children specifically. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the conclusions were not highly sensitive to unmeasured confounding of the magnitude of non-verbal intelligence, but residual bias from unobserved variables or from measurement error in latent constructs such as student ability could not be ruled out.

The authors could only speculate about why retention produces these effects. One candidate mechanism is instructional fit: repeating a curriculum that is not aligned with the child's zone of proximal development — the band of tasks a child can perform with guidance but not yet independently — may waste the extra year. Another is labeling theory — the idea that being marked as a failure lowers a child's self-image and others' expectations of them, degrading later performance. Which mechanism, if either, operates has not been tested.

Later work sharpened the picture without answering the mechanism question. A systematic review and three-level meta-analysis of 84 methodologically sound studies (Goos, Pipa and Peixoto, 2021) found the average effect of retention to be approximately zero, but with systematic heterogeneity: retention appeared less effective in countries that combine retention with tracking (separating students into different school types) and more effective where ability grouping within schools is used, for psychosocial outcomes, in the short run, and under stronger quasi-experimental designs such as regression discontinuity (comparing children just above and below a retention cutoff). Country-specific causal studies continue to produce context-dependent answers — adverse effects in Italy and Spain, effects of school retention rates in Colombia that benefited non-retained and higher-socioeconomic students, and long-run persistence of effects in the United States — confirming that effects vary with context without explaining why. Studies of psychosocial outcomes (academic self-concept, self-esteem, self-efficacy, grit) measure candidate consequences of retention, not the pathways through which its achievement effects are produced.

Finally, the source study explicitly left open what should be done instead: the effects of retention relative to other forms of exclusion, such as referral to special education (placement in separately funded instruction and services for children with identified disabilities), are unknown, and so are the school-level conditions and capacity needed to promote and support at-risk children in lieu of retention.

Problem Statement

The problem, as left open by Vandecandelaere et al. (2016) and unresolved by the subsequent literature, is to open the black box of early grade retention under a single overarching objective: to understand early grade retention well enough — in terms of its mechanisms, its comparative effectiveness, and the school conditions that enable alternatives — to know what should be done for at-risk children instead of, or in addition to, retaining them. Concretely, three scientifically linked questions must be answered:

  1. Mechanisms. By what causal pathways does early grade retention produce its effects on children's academic and psychosocial development? In particular, can the competing candidate explanations — misalignment of the repeated curriculum with the child's zone of proximal development, and labeling or stigma effects — be empirically distinguished, alone or in combination?

  2. Alternatives. What are the effects of grade retention relative to other responses to early underachievement — above all referral to special education, but also other forms of exclusion or extra support — for comparable at-risk children? No credible head-to-head causal comparison currently exists.

  3. School conditions. What school-level conditions and capacity — for example, instructional support, teacher beliefs and training, or the availability of alternative programs — enable schools to promote and support at-risk children effectively in lieu of retention?

The causal assumptions on which the analysis rests, its robustness to unmeasured confounding and to measurement error in latent constructs such as student ability, and the transfer of its conclusions beyond the Flemish context — where retention is a socially accepted practice — to settings with different cultural, economic, or policy characteristics are all part of the question. Component 3 asks for identification and characterization of the school-level conditions and capacity that the evidence supports as enabling effective promotion and support of at-risk children in lieu of retention, together with how each enables it, rather than a proof that any condition is counterfactually necessary in every school system; transferability concerns whether and how the identified mechanisms and conditions extend beyond Flanders to the settings examined in the cited evidence. The three components are scientifically linked parts of the single objective; a new estimate of total effects in a new country, or a psychosocial-outcome study without mediation evidence, each addresses only one of those parts.

References

  1. Vandecandelaere, M., Vansteelandt, S., De Fraine, B., & Van Damme, J. (2016). The effects of early grade retention: Effect modification by prior achievement and age. Journal of School Psychology, 54, 77–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2015.10.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.10.004
  2. Goos, M., Pipa, J., & Peixoto, F. (2021). Effectiveness of grade retention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 34, 100401. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100401
  3. Pipa, J., & Peixoto, F. (2022). One step back or one step forward? Effects of grade retention and school retention composition on Portuguese students' psychosocial outcomes using PISA 2018 data. Sustainability, 14(24), 16573. DOI: 10.3390/su142416573. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416573
  4. Pipa, J., Daniel, J. R., & Peixoto, F. (2024). Effects of grade retention in lower secondary education on students' self-concept, self-esteem, goal orientations, and school career. Psychology in the Schools, 61, 1897–1921. DOI: 10.1002/pits.23145. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23145
  5. Contini, D., & Salza, G. (2024). Children left behind. New evidence on the (adverse) impact of grade retention on educational careers. European Sociological Review, 40, 1046–1066. DOI: 10.1093/esr/jcae014. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcae014
  6. León, J., & Martínez-Abad, F. (2025). The effect of grade retention on performance in Spanish students: a propensity score matching approach. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 13, Article 8. DOI: 10.1186/s40536-025-00243-0. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-025-00243-0
  7. Parra-Cely, S., Golsteyn, B. H. H., & Ferreira-Sequeda, M. (2026). The effect of grade retention on secondary school performance: Evidence from a natural experiment. PLOS ONE, 21(3), e0345322. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0345322. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345322
  8. Larsen, M. F., & Valant, J. (2023). The long-term effects of grade retention: Evidence on persistence through high school and college. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 17, 615–646. DOI: 10.1080/19345747.2023.2240323. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2023.2240323
  9. Buckmaster, J. L., Urick, A., & Ford, T. G. (2023). A quasi-experimental, longitudinal study of grade retention on language outcomes for English language learners. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 29, 332–362. DOI: 10.1080/10824669.2023.2202324. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2023.2202324
  10. Fernández-Alonso, R., Postigo, Á., Suárez-Álvarez, J., & Muñiz, J. (2025). Longitudinal evidence on the potential adverse impact of grade repetition on self-concept and grit. Learning and Instruction, 99, 102172. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102172
  11. Van Canegem, T., Vandelannote, I., Van Houtte, M., & Demanet, J. (2023). Retained for life: A longitudinal study on the effects of grade retention in secondary education on higher education enrollment and self-efficacy. Social Psychology of Education, 27, 1673–1703. DOI: 10.1007/s11218-023-09875-y. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09875-y
  12. Silverstein, M., Guppy, N., Young, R., & Augustyn, M. (2009). Receipt of special education services following elementary school grade retention. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(6), 547. DOI: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.54. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.54
  13. Smith, J., Paquin, S., St-Amand, J., Singh, C., Moreau, D., Bergeron, J., & Leroux, M. (2022). A remediation measure as an alternative to grade retention: A study on achievement motivation. Psychology in the Schools, 59, 1209–1221. DOI: 10.1002/pits.22677. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22677
  14. Pepels, J., Belfi, B., Goos, M., & Haelermans, C. (2026). Grade Retention Across Borders: A Cross-Country Analysis of the Role of Schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 37, 196–221. DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2026.2658545. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2026.2658545
  15. Allende, C., López, V., & Vandecandelaere, M. (2025). Teachers' Beliefs About the Consequences of Grade Retention: Scale Validation and Differences Across Individual and School-Level Factors. Education Sciences, 15(2), 220. DOI: 10.3390/educsci15020220. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020220