When Systems Fail Students

Student retention without sufficient support remains a recurring practice in education despite its long-term negative impact on learning outcomes. People often view grade repetition as an academic solution yet it remains an ineffective approach to help students grow academically.

Picture this workplace scenario: A fast-food restaurant hires an employee to manage its cash register operations. At six months his performance remains poor in entering orders correctly while struggling to optimize the system. How would a responsible employer handle this situation? Should the organization transfer the employee to work with the same register system at a different restaurant location.

Of course not. A good manager would engage in employee training to help him develop his skills. School administrators would give students additional educational help along with precise instructions and pair them with an experienced peer for support until they improve their skills. In that world, terminating someone is a last resort.

So why don’t we treat struggling students the same way?

Holding students back without proper adjustments or learning assistance or specific educational help fails to serve as a practical answer to learning failure. It’s a shortcut. This practice results in negative effects such as decreased student self-esteem and withdrawal from education and subsequent academic deterioration.

Research has demonstrated that students who need to repeat a year face significantly higher negative impacts than positive outcomes. Students who repeat grades face higher probabilities of quitting school as well as mental health issues and active disengagement (Jimerson, 2001; NASP, 2020). The repeated grade does not introduce new academic material yet students lack essential personalized help to understand their initial struggles.

The problem extends further than one educational choice, since it demonstrates how students and their teachers lack essential resources for success.

Teachers Want to Support Their Students

Teachers understand when students need extra time,alternative teaching methods, or personalized help. However, their ability to teach students effectively is restricted by overcrowded classrooms as well as unrealistic schedules, insufficient support, and limited resources (OECD, 2020). Educators are not unwilling but the system prevents them from being successful in providing students with the educational support they deserve.

This is not a teacher problem. The problem stems from leadership failures which can be followed up “the golden thread” of accountability. Starting with school principals, continuing through education departments, all the way up to national policy makers.

Student performance suffers when educational decisions regarding funding and personnel and content are developed by people who lack direct experience in classroom settings. Under funding interventions and teacher overload causes teacher retention to become a desperate choice instead of a strategic one.

Students succeed while systems fail them.

When a student shows signs of struggling we should start by asking these questions:

• Do we have enough resources to deliver the necessary support they require?

• Have we implemented teaching methods to meet their current needs?

• Are we using data-driven progress monitoring?

• Have we implemented various teaching methods that include one-on-one instruction in addition to small group support?

• Have assessment results revealed any learning disabilities or executive functioning challenges?

• Have we included family members in creating an educational action plan?

• Does the student’s family deal with these problems outside of school?

If the answer to these questions are no, and the only solution to a student struggling academically is holding them back, educational malpractice has taken place. The use of retention should be considered only after all other options have been exhausted. Educators must use every possible resource before they ever discuss retention.

High Stakes Failures

High-stakes testing should not control the curriculum design,funding distribution, and scheduling. Such standards restrict both teaching methods and student learning approaches. Research shows that effective teaching methods include small class sizes combined with targeted interventions along with qualified personnel, adaptive schedules, and meaningful student-teacher relationships. These elements form the fundamental foundation for genuine academic development.

To help students achieve success we must change our approach toward retention because it does not address the fundamental causes of knowledge deficits. Schools should provide teaching tools and time along with support to their educators while maintaining leadership responsibility for establishing these educational resources. The correct solution is to advance education rather than keeping students behind.

In fact, research shows that students who are retained are 60% more likely to drop out of high school compared to their former peers.

References

Jimerson (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of grade retention research which demonstrated that students who repeated a grade became 60% more likely to abandon their high school education (Implications for practice in the 21st century, p. 420–437).

National Association of School Psychologists (2020). Position Statement: Grade Retention and Social Promotion. Retrieved from https://www.nasponline.org 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2020). Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals: Status, Working Conditions and Training. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education

Darling-Hammond (2010) published The Flat World and Education: How America's Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future through Teachers College Press.

Berliner (2011) studied the effects of high stakes testing on curriculum narrowing while demonstrating how such practices cause educational harm in Cambridge Journal of Education 41(3): 287–302.