Test-based promotion laws in U.S. elementary schools retain students who fail a reading test, and regression-discontinuity studies consistently find that early retention raises achievement for marginal students. Whether retention also helps or harms students' psychosocial development — their sense of school belonging, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and confidence — remains unmeasured, because the administrative records these studies rely on contain no such constructs. The open question comes from Hwang and Koedel's study of Indiana's third-grade IREAD-3 retention policy, whose regression-discontinuity design covers academic, attendance, and disciplinary outcomes only; its own discussion calls for future studies that expand the range of non-academic outcomes to include a sense of belonging, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and confidence. Two features of the existing designs frame that question without defining it: exemption rules remove English learners and students with disabilities from the RD samples of the states that adopt them, and RD estimates are local to students near the cutoff — a qualification the source itself discounts, since a far-from-cutoff parameter would apply to very few students. The problem is formulated as: whether early grade retention under test-based promotion policies helps or harms these unmeasured psychosocial outcomes, measured by validated instruments rather than administrative proxies, once the identification problem created by the absent measures is addressed.

Background

Grade retention — requiring a student to repeat a grade rather than move on with classmates — is one of the most controversial practices in education policy. Since Florida's 2002 reform, many U.S. states have adopted test-based promotion laws that make promotion contingent on a reading test: students scoring below a cutoff must repeat the grade unless they qualify for an exemption. Indiana's version, effective from 2011–12, required third graders who did not pass the state reading assessment (IREAD-3, the Indiana Reading Evaluation and Determination test) to repeat third grade, with a second chance over the summer and exemptions for English Language Learners (ELLs — students whose home language is not English and who are not yet English-proficient), students with disabilities served under an Individualized Education Program (IEP — the legal plan specifying special-education services), and students previously retained twice. Laws of this kind covered roughly a third of U.S. public-school third graders by 2023–24.

Because retention is triggered by a test-score cutoff, the standard empirical tool is the regression discontinuity (RD) design: comparing students who scored just below the cutoff with those just above it recovers a causal effect for marginal students under weak assumptions. In the fuzzy version used when compliance is imperfect, the cutoff shifts only the probability of retention; the resulting local average treatment effect applies to "compliers" — students whose retention status is determined by the cutoff — and requires an exclusion restriction, namely that the cutoff affects outcomes only through retention itself.

Applying these designs, the literature finds sizeable short-run achievement gains from early retention in Chicago (Jacob and Lefgren, 2004), Florida (Schwerdt, West, and Winters, 2017), and Indiana, where N. Hwang and Koedel (published as "Helping or Hurting", 2023) show that third-grade retention raises same-grade English language arts and mathematics scores by roughly half a student standard deviation, with effects persisting up to five years into middle school, no detectable effects on absences, and mixed-to-null behavioral evidence elsewhere (Özek, 2015, finds a temporary rise in discipline incidents for retained Florida third graders). Longer-run attainment results diverge: Florida grade-3 retention leaves high-school completion unchanged; New York City retention reduces credit accumulation and, for middle grades, increases dropout (Mariano, Martorell, and Berglund); Louisiana's grade-8 placements reduce attainment through college (Larsen and Valant). For English learners in Florida, retention coupled with instructional support improves English proficiency and course-taking without adverse discipline effects (Figlio and Özek, 2020).

What none of this evidence can speak to is the classical objection to retention: that repeating a grade damages a child's psychosocial development — sense of school belonging, self-efficacy (a student's belief in their own capability to succeed academically), self-esteem, and confidence. Administrative records contain no measures of these constructs, so every RD study of test-based retention is silent on them. The prior quasi-experimental evidence on psychosocial outcomes comes from non-policy retention in earlier grades or from other countries and is mutually inconsistent (Wu, West, and Hughes, 2010; S. H. J. Hwang and Cappella, 2018; Pipa and Peixoto, 2022; Fabian, 2025). Two further gaps follow from the design itself. First, exempt populations — ELLs and students with IEPs — are dropped from RD samples by construction in the states that exempt them, so no cutoff-based estimates exist for them there; where English learners are not exempt, design-based Florida RD estimates do exist (Figlio and Özek, 2020). Second, RD estimates apply only to compliers near the cutoff, leaving students well below or above it unstudied. Finally, recent work shows that the fuzzy-RD exclusion restriction can fail in these policies because failing students receive remediation services regardless of whether they are retained (Berne, Jacob, Weiland, and Strunk, 2025), so an estimate that claims the effect of retention itself must address the services bundled with it, while an estimate of the retention flag together with its bundled supports identifies the effect of that policy bundle.

Problem Statement

Determine the causal effect of early grade retention under test-based promotion policies — the source context being Indiana's third-grade IREAD-3 retention policy — on students' psychosocial development: sense of school belonging, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and confidence, as measured by validated instruments, not merely by administrative proxies such as attendance and disciplinary incidents. The four outcome dimensions are fixed as distinct constructs — school belonging (perceived acceptance and inclusion at school), academic self-efficacy (belief in one's own capacity to succeed at academic tasks), self-esteem (overall sense of self-worth), and confidence (general belief in one's own abilities) — each of which the design must operationalize with a named, established validated instrument, stating explicitly where a single instrument jointly captures more than one of them; instrument selection is part of the design. Existing regression-discontinuity studies of these policies, including the primary source, observe academic, attendance, and disciplinary outcomes only, so no design-based evidence exists on the psychosocial dimensions that motivated the policies' critics. The unifying objective is to establish whether early test-based retention, as actually implemented, helps or harms students along these non-achievement dimensions, so that the benefit-cost assessment of these widespread laws no longer rests on achievement and discipline outcomes alone. The estimand is the effect of the policy as actually implemented — the retention decision together with the supports bundled with it, not the isolated retention flag. Because no existing dataset links the retention instrument to validated psychosocial measures, the question itself is what a credible identification strategy would have to be — the estimand, the data construction connecting the retention decision to those measures, and the identifying assumptions.

Two design limitations of the existing evidence frame this question without constituting further deliverables. First, the primary source excludes English Language Learners and students with disabilities served under IEPs because they qualify for exemptions to retention policy, which makes its research design ill-suited to evaluate them; where such exemptions do not apply, design-based cutoff estimates for English learners do exist (Figlio and Özek, 2020). Second, its estimates are local to marginally retained and promoted students, a qualification the source itself discounts: in its context marginal students are of the greatest policy interest, and a far-from-cutoff parameter would apply to very few students.

References

  1. N. Hwang and C. Koedel (2023, online first; print 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 (working-paper version: "Holding Back to Move Forward", EdWorkingPaper 22-688, https://edworkingpapers.com/ai22-688)
  2. L. T. Mariano, P. Martorell, and T. Berglund (2024, online first; print 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
  3. L. T. Mariano, P. Martorell, and T. Tsai (2018), "The Effects of Grade Retention on High School Outcomes: Evidence from New York City Schools", RAND Working Paper WR-1259, DOI: 10.7249/wr1259, https://doi.org/10.7249/wr1259
  4. M. F. Larsen and J. Valant (2024), "The Long-Term Effects of Grade Retention: Evidence on Persistence through High School and College", Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 17(4):615-646, DOI: 10.1080/19345747.2023.2240323, https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2023.2240323
  5. D. Figlio and U. Özek (2020), "An extra year to learn English? Early grade retention and the human capital development of English learners", Journal of Public Economics 186:104184, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104184
  6. W. Wu, S. G. West, and J. N. Hughes (2010), "Effect of grade retention in first grade on psychosocial outcomes", Journal of Educational Psychology 102(1):135-152, DOI: 10.1037/a0016664, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016664
  7. S. H. J. Hwang and E. Cappella (2018), "Rethinking Early Elementary Grade Retention: Examining Long-Term Academic and Psychosocial Outcomes", Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 11(4):559-587, DOI: 10.1080/19345747.2018.1496500, https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1496500
  8. J. Pipa and F. Peixoto (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
  9. L.-C. Hu and E. Hannum (2020), "Red flag: Grade retention and student academic and behavioral outcomes in China", Children and Youth Services Review 113:104896, DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104896, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104896
  10. P. Fabian (2025), "Do Small Fish Become Big Sharks? Grade Retention Effects on Well-Being and Socio-Emotional Outcomes", AERA Online Paper Repository (2025 Annual Meeting roundtable presentation), DOI: 10.3102/2193890, https://doi.org/10.3102/2193890
  11. W. Van den Broeck and E. Staels (2020), "Grade Retention in Primary School has Robust and Long-term Positive Effects on Academic Performance and Psychosocial Well-being. How to Avoid Model Dependence and Selection-bias in Grade Retention Research" (unrefereed PsyArXiv preprint), DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/7g3sa, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7g3sa
  12. J. S. Berne, B. A. Jacob, C. Weiland, and K. O. Strunk (2025), "The Impacts of Grade Retention Policy With Minimal Retention", NBER Working Paper 33764, DOI: 10.3386/w33764, https://www.nber.org/papers/w33764
  13. J. S. Berne, B. A. Jacob, C. Weiland, and K. O. Strunk (2026), "Assessing the impact of grade retention: A cautionary tale of exclusion restriction violations", Journal of Public Economics 253:105534, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2025.105534, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2025.105534
  14. I. M. Opper and U. Özek (2024), "A Global Regression Discontinuity Design: Theory and Application to Grade Retention Policies", SSRN Working Paper 4748020, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4748020, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4748020
  15. M. A. Winters and A. Francis (2026), "Identifying Retention Effects in the Presence of Remediation-Based Exemptions", SSRN Working Paper 7194887, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.7194887, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7194887
  16. G. Schwerdt, M. R. West, and M. A. Winters (2017), "The effects of test-based retention on student outcomes over time: Regression discontinuity evidence from Florida", Journal of Public Economics 152:154-169, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.06.004, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.06.004
  17. B. A. Jacob and L. Lefgren (2004), "Remedial Education and Student Achievement: A Regression-Discontinuity Analysis", Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1):226-244, DOI: 10.1162/003465304323023778, https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023778
  18. U. Özek (2015), "Hold Back To Move Forward? Early Grade Retention And Student Misbehavior", Education Finance and Policy 10(3):350-377, DOI: 10.1162/edfp_a_00166, https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00166
  19. L. Moulin and F. Sari (2026), "Grade retention and long-term outcomes: evidence from French data", Empirical Economics 71(2), DOI: 10.1007/s00181-026-02957-8, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-026-02957-8