Whether grade retention (requiring a student to repeat a school year) causes subsequent declines in students' motivation, engagement, and self-esteem — or whether pre-existing difficulties simultaneously drive retention and later poor outcomes — was left open by Martin's (2011) cross-sectional study of 3,261 high-school students, which found retention negatively associated with academic self-concept, homework completion, and self-esteem, and positively associated with maladaptive motivation and absenteeism. A subsequent wave of longitudinal, propensity-matched, regression-discontinuity, and difference-in-differences studies, synthesized in a literature review of causal-inference studies and an 84-study systematic review and meta-analysis, has produced an average near-zero retention effect whose sign on psychosocial outcomes depends systematically on the comparison frame (same-age vs. same-grade peers), outcome domain, timing, and institutional setting. The surviving open problem is to identify the causal effect of retention on motivational, engagement, self-esteem, self-concept, and attainment outcomes while separating retention's contribution from selection, and to map the heterogeneity of that effect across student subgroups, reasons for retention, outcome domains, and school- and system-level contexts — determining for whom, and under what conditions, retention is beneficial, neutral, or harmful.

Background

Grade retention (also called grade repetition) is the practice of requiring a student to repeat a school year rather than advance with age-mates; the alternative policy of automatic advancement is called social promotion. Both practices are applied at scale worldwide, and which is better for struggling students is one of the longest-standing policy debates in educational research. The debate turns on a hard causal-inference problem: retained students are not randomly selected. They typically already have lower achievement, more behavioral difficulty, or lower motivation before repeating, so any comparison of retained and promoted students conflates the effect of retention with pre-existing differences (selection). Random assignment of students to retention is considered infeasible and unethical, so researchers must rely on observational designs that adjust for selection — prospective longitudinal panels, propensity score matching (statistically pairing retained students with similar promoted students on many pre-treatment characteristics), or quasi-experiments such as regression discontinuity designs (RDD, which exploit test-score cutoffs that largely determine retention) and difference-in-differences comparisons around policy changes.

Two prior results frame the question. First, a meta-analysis by Allen, Chen, Willson, and Hughes (2009) of 22 studies found that better research designs yield less negative effects of retention on achievement, and that results differ depending on whether retained students are compared with same-age promoted peers (age comparison) or with younger classmates in the same grade (grade comparison). Second, Martin (2011), in a structural equation model (a statistical technique that estimates networks of direct and indirect relationships among variables simultaneously) of 3,261 high-school students with retrospective retention history, found retention to be a significant negative predictor of academic self-concept (a student's self-perception of ability in school), homework completion, and general self-esteem, a positive predictor of maladaptive motivation (motivational patterns oriented toward avoiding failure and self-protection rather than toward learning) and absenteeism, and unrelated to peer relationships; a subsample of 186 retained students matched to 186 promoted students on ability, age, and gender confirmed the pattern. Because the design was a single-time-point survey, the causal direction remains undetermined: whether retention causes the declines or pre-existing factors cause both retention and later outcomes. Directions for further research identified in Martin (2011) include longitudinal or experimental identification, knowledge of the reasons for retention, domain-specific (e.g. mathematics vs. English) rather than only domain-general measures, and multilevel data capable of separating school-level from student-level variance.

The comparison-frame issue deserves emphasis because it structures the whole later literature. A retained student is a year older than their new classmates; social comparison theory (the big-fish-little-pond effect — the finding that students' academic self-concept depends on the ability of their comparison group, so being relatively strong in a weaker class raises self-concept) predicts retention should raise self-concept through demotion to a younger cohort, while stigma and lost peer networks predict the opposite. Whether one compares the retained student with same-age promoted peers or with younger grade-mates can therefore flip the sign of the estimated effect, and which frame answers which policy question is itself contested.

Problem Statement

Determine the causal effect of grade retention on students' academic and non-academic outcomes — motivation, engagement, self-esteem, academic self-concept, achievement, absenteeism, and downstream attainment — separating the effect of retention itself from pre-existing differences between retained and promoted students (pre-retention differences in ability, motivation, and behavior), and characterize how this effect is heterogeneous across student subgroups and school- and system-level contexts. The single overarching objective is a defensible causal and conditional answer to Martin's (2011) question: does retention cause the observed declines in motivation, engagement, and self-esteem, or do pre-existing behavioral, motivational, and achievement-related factors drive both retention and later outcomes — and for which students, under what conditions, is retention beneficial, neutral, or harmful? The following considerations bear on the causal question and on how the effect varies: (i) the comparison frame — because estimated effects can differ in sign depending on whether retained students are compared with same-age promoted peers or with same-grade younger classmates (Allen et al., 2009; Marsh et al., 2017), so an estimated effect is interpretable only relative to the frame used; (ii) candidate moderators, including reasons for retention (behavior, effort, immaturity, parental preference, school policy), outcome domains (domain-general versus domain-specific self-concepts and motivation), student subgroups (e.g., ability, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic and immigrant background), a school's retention composition (the proportion of its students who are retained), and whether the wider system tracks students into ability-based school types or teaches them in mixed-ability groups; (iii) data provenance (verified administrative retention records versus retrospective self-report); and (iv) where causal designs cannot reach, qualitative or process evidence on retention decisions and on remedial interventions that might substitute for retention. The objective covers both the causal effect and its heterogeneity across these moderator axes; findings limited to a single outcome or subgroup address only part of it.

References

  1. Martin, A. J. (2011). Holding back and holding behind: Grade retention and students' non-academic and academic outcomes. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 739–763. DOI: 10.1080/01411926.2010.490874. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.490874
  2. Allen, C. S., Chen, Q., Willson, V. L., & Hughes, J. N. (2009). Quality of research design moderates effects of grade retention on achievement: A meta-analytic, multilevel analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 480–499. DOI: 10.3102/0162373709352239. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709352239
  3. Goos, M., Van Damme, J., Onghena, P., Petry, K., & de Bilde, J. (2013). First-grade retention in the Flemish educational context: Effects on children's academic growth, psychosocial growth, and school career throughout primary education. Journal of School Psychology, 51(3), 323–347. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2013.03.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.03.002
  4. Peixoto, F., Monteiro, V., Mata, L., Sanches, C., Pipa, J., & Almeida, L. S. (2016). "To be or not to be retained … That's the question!" Retention, self-esteem, self-concept, achievement goals, and grades. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1550. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01550. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01550
  5. Klapproth, F., Schaltz, P., Brunner, M., Keller, U., Fischbach, A., Ugen, S., & Martin, R. (2016). Short-term and medium-term effects of grade retention in secondary school on academic achievement and psychosocial outcome variables. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 182–194. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.014
  6. Marsh, H. W., Pekrun, R., Parker, P. D., Murayama, K., Guo, J., Dicke, T., & Lichtenfeld, S. (2017). Long-term positive effects of repeating a year in school: Six-year longitudinal study of self-beliefs, anxiety, social relations, school grades, and test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 425–438. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000144. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000144
  7. Hughes, J. N., West, S. G., Kim, H., & Bauer, S. S. (2018). Effect of early grade retention on school completion: A prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 974–991. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000243. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000243
  8. Martorell, P., & Mariano, L. T. (2018). The causal effects of grade retention on behavioral outcomes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(2), 192–216. DOI: 10.1080/19345747.2017.1390024. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2017.1390024
  9. Cockx, B., Picchio, M., & Baert, S. (2019). Modeling the effects of grade retention in high school. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 34(3), 403–424. DOI: 10.1002/jae.2670. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2670
  10. Kretschmann, J., Vock, M., Lüdtke, O., Jansen, M., & Gronostaj, A. (2019). Effects of grade retention on students' motivation: A longitudinal study over 3 years of secondary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1432–1446. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000353. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000353
  11. Valbuena, J., Mediavilla, M., Choi, Á., & Gil, M. (2021). Effects of grade retention policies: A literature review of empirical studies applying causal inference. Journal of Economic Surveys, 35(2), 408–451. DOI: 10.1111/joes.12406. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12406
  12. 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
  13. Van Canegem, T., Van Houtte, M., & Demanet, J. (2021). Grade retention and academic self-concept: A multilevel analysis of the effects of schools' retention composition. British Educational Research Journal, 47(5), 1340–1360. DOI: 10.1002/berj.3729. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3729
  14. Zhang, S., & Huang, A. (2022). The long-term effects of automatic grade promotion on child development. China Economic Review, 74, 101824. DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2022.101824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2022.101824
  15. Santos, N. N., Monteiro, V., & Carvalho, C. (2023). Impact of grade retention and school engagement on student intentions to enrol in higher education in Portugal. European Journal of Education, 58(1), 130–150. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12535. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12535
  16. Contini, D., & Salza, G. (2024). Children left behind. New evidence on the (adverse) impact of grade retention on educational careers. European Sociological Review, 40(6), 1046–1066. DOI: 10.1093/esr/jcae014. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcae014
  17. 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(5), 1897–1921. DOI: 10.1002/pits.23145. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23145
  18. Van Canegem, T., Vandelannote, I., Van Houtte, M., & Demanet, J. (2024). 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(4), 1673–1703. DOI: 10.1007/s11218-023-09875-y. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09875-y
  19. Hwang, N., & Koedel, C. (2025). Helping or hurting: The effects of retention in the third grade on student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 47(1), 65–88. DOI: 10.3102/01623737231197639. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231197639
  20. Mariano, L. T., Martorell, P., & Berglund, T. (2025). The effects of grade retention on high school outcomes: Evidence from New York City schools. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 18(1), 1–31. DOI: 10.1080/19345747.2023.2287607. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2023.2287607
  21. 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