Should failing students repeat a grade/the year?

J Educ Change (2008) 9:391 394 DOI 10.1007/s10833-008-9088-4 BIG CHANGE QUESTION Should failing students repeat a grade/the year? Answer by Alejandro Tiana (Professor of History of Education and Comparative Education at the Spanish Distance Teaching University and former Secretary General for Education in the Ministry of Education and Science of Spain) Alejandro Tiana Published online: 8 August 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008 Before answering to the Big Question, let me begin by questioning the question itself. What does a failing student mean? I am aware that the editors invited me to answer to the central issue they raised (grade repetition) and I am committed to do so. But I consider it necessary to make some preliminary reflections about the terms in which the question is posed. Let me start by that. We should acknowledge that failure and failing are widespread words in the educational literature. Even if most of us emphasize in our discourse that we do not like those expressions, we use them very often. It is evident that we all do set aims and objectives for the whole education system, for both schools and students, and we take them as reference for making decisions about marks, passes and certificates. We also use them as criteria for appraising the outcomes of education. It is a normal way of behaving in our professional activities and also in our daily life. So, failure does mean not reaching those objectives and failing is considered to be the entity or person not succeeding in that undertaking. But the problem arises when we have to introduce differences among students, classes or schools. What criteria do we use for those purposes? Are these concepts as objective and neutral as we presume? Here, the evidence provided by educational research and literature obliges us to be more humble and cautious. A book widely debated in France and Spain some few years ago pointed out to the weaknesses of the marking practices in our schools (Antibi 2003). According to the author, teachers tend to use a certain image of normality as the main reference for decisions concerning students passing or not their courses. If the number of students passing a certain course exceeds a normal proportion, the evaluation will be considered as unreliable or abnormal. Even more, when a high proportion of students does pass a course, its teacher will be considered nonrigorous enough and probably not a good professional. We also know about the existence of several effects already described in the educational literature, as for instance the labelling effect, by which teachers tend to set high or low expectations for every student and to interpret their outcomes according to them. And, we A. Tiana (&) Departamento de Historia de la Educación y Educación Comparada, Edificio de Humanidades UNED, Paseo Senda del Rey, 7, 28040 Madrid, Spain e-mail: atiana@edu.uned.es

392 J Educ Change (2008) 9:391 394 also know that the average level of a class does influence the marks of each single student. For instance, a weak student may have a higher mark in a weak class than in a good one. This can explain why the same performance may result in different marks and passing decisions in different contexts. According to that experience, we should put the term failing student at least in quotation marks. This fact is also connected with a very sensitive issue, i.e., the fairness of the distinction between success and failure. This is not the core of the question posed, but we should keep it in mind, because it affects our answer. Let s accept that we may have an objective and fair system of students assessment for making passing decisions. Probably this supposition should not be accepted without discussion, as I have tried to underline before, but it is not the main issue here. The question is then how to behave with those students not reaching the objectives set for a specific subject or grade. One of the most traditional instruments used in schools with those students has been grade repetition. It has been the case especially in some OECD countries, like France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Mexico, Portugal, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Spain. In these countries more than 20% of students are currently repeating at least 1 year or grade of its basic, compulsory education, the proportion reaching in some cases up to 30% or even higher (OECD 2004, p. 262). In contrast, in some other countries, like Finland, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Korea, Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland and Slovak Republic, proportions remain well below 5%. And, we should note that this later group includes some of the best performers in PISA study, even if it is not possible to establish a causal relationship between both variables. Why is it that countries do differ so markedly in their policies of repetition? Undoubtedly, history, tradition and school culture do strongly affect their respective policies. But we should not take that diversity for granted and ask ourselves about the reasons behind those differences and their associated effects. We may adopt different perspectives for approaching this issue. From a psychological point of view, the notion that repetition offers a new opportunity for educational progress lies on a simple, linear conception of child development. It implicitly assumes that development is cumulative instead of being the result of a complex process of knowledge building. It also implies the assumption that each grade is placed in a chain of educational progress. With that idea in mind, doing again the tasks not accomplished in the past is considered to be the main condition for avoiding later failure. This is the reason why some teachers and parents think that repeating a grade will provide the child with a more solid educational ground for the next steps of its educational development. But even if in some cases this experience proves to be positive, more frequently it is just the contrary. Many families and counsellors report and alert about the feelings of discomfort and dissatisfaction associated with retention, which provoke demobilization and lack of expectations in relation to schooling. Psychological research confirms these negative effects on the student s self-image which paves the way for future school failure. From a pedagogical perspective, we may reach similar conclusions. In fact, educational research does not confirm the hypothesis that repetition is a reliable decision for assuring future success. It seems to be just the contrary. A couple of traditional surveys of repetition studies did confirm some years ago the negative pedagogical effects of grade retention (Holmes 1990; Holmes and Matthews 1984). A more recent report presented to the French Haut Conseil de l Évaluation de l École confirmed the same criticisms and emphasized the broken promises of grade repetition (Paul and Troncin 2004). The conclusion of those surveys is categorical: Those who continue to retain pupils at grade level do so despite

J Educ Change (2008) 9:391 394 393 cumulative research evidence showing that the potential for negative effects consistently outweighs positive outcomes (Holmes and Matthews 1984, p. 232). If we take a sociological perspective, we will find that repetition and social background are closely connected. Everything points to the fact that repetition is not a socially neutral phenomenon. In fact, the educational level of the parents (more than just the economic status of the family) does influence both the probability of retention and the strategies adopted for grade passing or repetition. There is a sociological component in repetition. Finally, from an economic and administrative point of view, repetition is expensive and even wasteful. The cost of repetition currently amounts in Spain up to 1,000 million per year, and in France the figure is a bit more than double. One may legitimately answer if this is the most effective way for facing learning difficulties. Taking all these arguments together, my answer to the Big Question is clear: I do not think that grade repetition is the best solution for avoiding school failure. Even more, I believe that it is one of the causes of failure. So, we should avoid the use of it as a remediation instrument. Successful countries in education do prove that there are alternative ways of organizing teaching that produce better effects than repetition. I could stop here, but the reader would say that I am not answering to the question in a direct way. In fact, what decision should be taken for a failing student? Is it enough to make general statements about how an education system may be organized? Let me end by reflecting a little more about how we could and should react in those circumstances. At this point I have to clarify my position regarding repetition. I am clearly against it, as you have read, but I don t believe in miracles in this field. Even if I think there are solid arguments against the common use of repetition, we should consider different situations. On the one hand, there are some singular cases in which repetition is unavoidable. It is, for instance, the case when a student has severe health problems or moves home in traumatic circumstances or suffers any another major problem. Even the most strict education systems forbidding repetition do accept these exceptions. I will not argue against them, of course. My only caution will be to assure that repetition is the right solution for those specific cases. On the other hand, there are differences between basic and post-compulsory levels. I firmly believe that education systems have the obligation to make young people succeed in basic education, as a balance for being compulsory. I do accept that it is an ultimate objective, probably not reachable from one day to the next. But being ultimate does not mean it can be dropped. In contrast, post-compulsory education has a meritocratic character. I can accept that meeting certain objectives and formative requisites may imply different efforts, competencies and times. In this case repetition has to be accepted, but we should probably focus it on a different light, not just as retention. In any case, I think repetition is not desirable. We should look for alternative strategies to deal with students at risk and school failure. But we should not forget that in the first group of countries mentioned above there are many favourable opinions about repetition among teachers and families. Many teachers consider repetition as a tool of teacher authority or even a punishment. A number of families consider it as a mean for avoiding future failure interestingly enough, teachers children do repeat well below the average. This situation does mean that there is a positive image of repetition in some sectors, which makes it necessary to act in an intelligent and cautious manner in order to reduce that practice. Negative reactions would impede the adoption of an alternative strategy. Naivety will never be the answer.

394 J Educ Change (2008) 9:391 394 To reduce the use of repetition, I think prohibition is not a good strategy by itself. Some alternative, convincing pathways need to be designed. It is a gradual process in which convincing education actors is crucial. In my opinion, the key terms for developing alternative strategies are personalization (in basic education) and flexibility (in post-compulsory education). In basic education, the only alternative is a clever combination of prevention, early detection of problems and timely response. Systems which prevent young people being left behind get good performances without repetition. There is not a magic answer. In post-compulsory education, offering flexible pathways inside the system and two-way roads between education, training and labour in a lifelong perspective is an alternative model to whether linear progress or repetition. These two images may help us design realistic, effective alternatives to grade or year repetition. References Antibi, A. (2003). La Constante Macabre. Ou comment a-t-on découragé des générations d élèves. Toulouse: Ed. Math adore. Holmes, C. T. (1990). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades. Research and policies on retention (pp. 16 33). Bristol: Falmer Press. Holmes, C. T., & Matthews, K. M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high schools pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 225 236. OECD (2004). Learning for tomorrow s world. First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. Paul, J.-J., & Troncin, T. (2004). Les apports de la recherche sur l impact du redoublement comme moyen de traiter les difficultés scolaires au cours de la scolarité obligatoire. Paris: Rapports établis à la demande du Haut Conseil de l Évaluation de l 0 École.