Microsoft Word - 394011_pdfconv_410243_BD43CCCC-8EC7-11E5-8B02-B4B24D662D30.docx

A QUALITATIVE PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE LIVED EXPERIENCES OF

ADULTS IN THE NORTH GEORGIA AREA THAT WERE RETAINED IN GRADES K-12.

Betsy Green

Liberty University

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Liberty University

2015

A QUALITATIVE PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE LIVED EXPERIENCES OF

ADULTS IN THE NORTH GEORGIA AREA THAT WERE RETAINED IN GRADES K-12.

Betsy Green

A Dissertation Plan Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

2015

APPROVED BY:

Roger Stiles, Ed.D., Committee Chair

Gary Kimball, Ed.D., Committee Member

Libby Bicknell, Ed.D., Committee Member

Scott Watson, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Advanced Programs

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to understand the impact

retention has had on the lived experiences of adults in the North Georgia area that were

retained in their K-12 education. The 10 participants were adults over the age of 18 that

live in a rural North Georgia community and have experienced retention. The sampling

was purposive and took place at public schools in Mountain Town, Georgia. The

research questions for this study were:

• How is the experience of grade retention remembered by adults retained in their

K-12 education?

• How has K-12 retention impacted self-efficacy, the belief in the ability to

succeed, and quality of life of adults who were retained during their K-12

education?

o How did retention impact their self-esteem?

o How did retention impact their employment successes and socioeconomic

status?

o How did retention impact their home life and relationships?

Data collection took place using a survey, questionnaires, interviews, and a focus group

discussion. Data analysis was conducted using Moustakas’ Seven Steps (Moustakas,

1994) and included enumeration, selecting quotations to provide authentication, and

coding that identified themes, significant statements, and shared experiences.

Keywords: retention, lived experiences, social promotion, self-esteem, achievement,

employment, socioeconomic status, relationships

Dedication/Acknowledgments Page

This huge accomplishment in my life was made possible by the love and grace of

God my father and by the support of my husband, Richard, my children, Rich and Rebecca,

and my friends that encouraged me along the way and put up with my long hours of work to

achieve this goal. I want to thank my parents, Lee and Rebecca Forehand, for teaching me

the value of never giving up and always believing that I could achieve any goal I set for

myself. I want to thank my uncle, Buddy Baarcke, for editing this dissertation and helping

me develop a finished product. I want to thank Dr. Roger Stiles for being a very supportive

chair and pushing me to finish when daily life intervened and threatened to derail my

efforts. I also want to thank Dr. Gary Kimball, Dr. Libby Bicknell, and Dr. Russ Yocum for

making suggestions to improve my final product.

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………… 3

Dedication/Acknowledgements……………………………………………………….. 4

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………….. 8

List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………….. 9

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….. 10

Overview……………………………………………………………………………... 10

Background…………………………………………………………………………... 11

Situation to Self……………………………………………………………………… 12

Problem Statement…………………………………………………………………… 13

Purpose Statement……………………………………………………………………. 13

Significance of Study………………………………………………………………… 14

Research Questions…………………………………………………………………... 14

Research Plan………………………………………………………………………… 15

Delimitations…………………………………………………………………………. 16

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………….. 17

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………17

Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………. 19

History of Retention in the United States……………………………………………. 22

Contributing Factors for Low Performing Students…………………………………. 26

Retention…………………………………………………………………………….. .29

Arguments in Support of Retention………………………………………………….. 31

Arguments Opposed to Retention………………………………………………….... 34

Alternative to Retention…………………………………………………………….. 40

Summary……………………………………………………………………………. 46

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………... 49

Overview……………………………………………………………………………. 49

Design………………………………………………………………………………. 49

Research Questions………………………………………………………………… 50

Participants…………………………………………………………………………. 51

Site…………………………………………………………………………………. 51

Procedures………………………………………………………………………..... 52

The Researcher’s Role…………………………………………………………….. 53

Data Collection……………………………………………………………………. 54

Surveys……………………………………………………………………. 55

Questionnaires……………………………………………………………. 56

Personal Interviews………………………………………………………. 56

Data Collected from Questionnaires and Interviews…………………….. 57

Focus Group…………………………………………………………....... 58

Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………. 59

Trustworthiness…………………………………………………………………. 60

Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………. 62

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS…………………………………………………………….. 63

Overview……………………………………………………………………….. 63

Participants……………………………………………………………………... 63

Results………………………………………………………………………….. 95

Summary……………………………………………………………………… 105

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS… 107

Overview……………………………………………………………………... 107

Summary of Findings………………………………………………………… 107

Discussion……………………………………………………………………. 112

Implications………………………………………………………………….. 116

Limitations…………………………………………………………………… 119

Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………… 120

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………… 120

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….... 122

APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………. 132

Appendix A. Qualifying Survey……………………………………………... 132

Appendix B. Questionnaire for Participants…………………………………. 133

Appendix C. Semi-structured Interview Questions………………………….. 135

Appendix D. Focus Group Questions………………………………………... 137

Appendix E. IRB Approval Letter…………………………………………… 139

Appendix F. Informed Consent……………………………………………… 140

List of Tables

Table 1: Overview of Participants………………………………………………….. 64

Table 2: Codes and Themes…………………………………………………………. 95

List of Abbreviations

American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

College and Career Readiness Performance Indicators (CCRPI)

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS)

Response to Intervention (RTI)

Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)

Socio-economic Status (SES)

Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM)

Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES)

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Overview

This dissertation plan highlights the impact that retention as a stand-alone intervention

has had on the educational outcomes, self-esteem, and quality of life in general of adults that

have experienced this phenomenon. Teachers and administrators struggle with whether to retain

students every year, despite the longitudinal research that shows that retention does more harm

than good (Jimerson & Renshaw, 2012; Silberglitt, Jimerson, Burns, & Appleton, 2006). This

study sought to shed light on how this controversial practice has shaped the lives of some of the

adults that have experienced retention. Today, more than ever, schools and teachers are held

accountable for student success and growth from one year to the next. For example, in the state

of Georgia, College and Career Readiness Performance Indicators (CCRPI) are used to grade

schools. The indicators are based on student success in the classroom and on standardized tests

(Barge, 2014). Teachers in the state of Georgia are evaluated using an instrument called the

Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES) and a growth model for each student that a teacher

teaches is a critical part of the Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM) that is used to decide if a

teacher is doing his or her job and will be used to make hiring and firing decisions (Barge, 2013).

Motivating low performing students to put forth effort and care about their educational success is

critical to all stakeholders. Therefore, this study seeks to enlighten teachers and administrators

about the experiences of adults with retention and highlight the importance of utilizing research

to validate current retention and promotion practices or to possibly adjust present practices to

help more students experience educational success at their ability level.

Background

Retention, the act of holding a student back in a grade due to him or her not mastering the

standards of the grade, has been practiced in the United States since the days of the one-room

schoolhouse. Around 1930, educational practice began to change in favor of social promotion,

moving a student up to the next grade when they have not mastered the standards, as

psychologists became concerned about what retention was doing to the social emotional aspect

of children (Steiner, 1986). In President Clinton’s State of the Union Address in the late 1990s,

he called for an end to social promotion and a rise in the standards and accountability of U.S.

public schools. On the heels of that attempt to improve the United States’ educational ranking in

the world, President Bush in 2002 signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of

2001. This act required states to raise standards and hold school systems and students

accountable for meeting those standards. Both of these attempts by the federal government to

improve public education in the United States caused a steady increase in the retention of

students over the past three decades (Leckrone & Griffith, 2006).

According to Jimerson and Renshaw, (2012) students that are retained in grades

kindergarten through eighth grade are five to 10 times more likely to drop out of school than

those not retained. Jimerson and Renshaw (2012) state, “Research reveals that neither retention

nor social promotion alone is an effective strategy for improving students’ academic, behavioral,

and social and emotional success” (p. 13). One school of thought about the practice of retention

is that keeping the student back for one year will allow them to mature and catch up. But,

research shows that students that are struggling learners and candidates for retention suffer from

many life circumstances that contribute to their poor educational state. According to Shaw

(2011), most students that are candidates for retention also have attendance issues, family

support issues, and socioeconomic issues. Some qualitative research highlights the positives of

retention in the eyes of those retained. Strong family units, especially a supportive mother, seem

to be the outside influence that turns retention into a positive experience (Rand, 2013; Smith,

2013).

There are many qualitative studies available that include the views of elementary

students, middle school students, high school students, teachers, and administrators about the

feelings each group has about the practice of retention (Fournier, 2009; Rand, 2013; Roberts,

2008; Shaw, 2011; Smith, 2013). But, there are very few studies that delve into the meaning of

retention from the point of view of adults who have lived through the experience. Studying the

impact of retention on the lives of adults should add to the research that influences educational

policy.

Situation to Self

Transcendental phenomenology involves setting aside personal experiences and feelings

about the phenomenon under study (Moustakas, 1994). As an educator, it is essential for me to

disclose my experiences with the phenomenon of retention and try to see this phenomenon with

fresh eyes as I delve into the stories and experiences of the participants of this study. After

teaching middle school for 10 years and being an assistant principal at the middle school and

elementary school levels, I have had personal experience with retention of students. I have been

involved with numerous retentions, either by being a committee member that helped make the

decision, or as a teacher of retained students. I have seen retention work for one of the 10 middle

school students that I taught and from this exposure, it seems that retention at the middle school

level is an ineffective practice. I have only been at the elementary level for a year and I will be

very interested to follow the students retained this past year to see if retention was beneficial to

them.

Problem Statement

The problem of this study is students that are retained as a stand-alone intervention do not

make significant gains in learning and often face negative outcomes in life. Research shows that

there is a large correlation between retention and dropping out of school (Jimerson & Ferguson,

2007). It is estimated that about half of heads of households supported by welfare are high

school dropouts (Schwartz, 1995). “Generally speaking, research has not supported retention

and suggested negative effects” (Silberglitt, et al., 2006, p. 135). It is important to study

retention because educators and parents need to make decisions for underperforming students

that take into account the whole child and offer the most beneficial opportunities. Interventions

need to be put in place early in a struggling learner’s educational career that meet them where

they are, not where the powers that be think that they should be (Powell, 2011). Studying the

lived experiences of adults that were retained in their K-12 education will shed light on what the

practice of retention does to a large span of a person’s life, not just the years that the person is in

school.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to understand the impact

that retention has had on the lived experiences of adults in the North Georgia area that were

retained in their K-12 education. Studying the impact of retention on adults should add to the

research that influences educational policy and local school retention decisions. Retention has

been practiced in the United States for over a century, and the bulk of the research does not

support this practice. The intent of retention is to allow students that are not on grade level with

the expected skills and standards to repeat the grade, catch up, mature, and successfully complete

school. While this is a practice that has the best of intentions of the educators that are trying to

help struggling students, the majority of the research points to negative outcomes for a large

percentage of those retained in grade. Interventions need to occur for the struggling learners so

that they can have success in school, graduate, and then pursue higher education or enter the

work force ready to achieve financial independence and make positive contributions to society.

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study was to provide educators with an insight into how retention

has played out in the lives of adults that experienced retention in their K-12 education.

Educators do want what is best for all students and do not make retention decisions lightly.

Educators view retention as “an opportunity to grow in maturity, build a stronger academic base

and/or as a chance to improve academically” (Roberts, 2007, p. 87). They assign retention with

the best of intentions in hope that this intervention will help students be successful in school and

that this success will carry over into their lives beyond their school experience. The qualitative

studies that research the impact of retention in grades K-12 on the lives of adults is sparse. This

study will add to the growing body of research with this demographic.

Research Questions

The research questions for this study were:

• How is the experience of grade retention remembered by adults retained in their K-12

education?

• How has K-12 retention impacted self-efficacy, the belief in the ability to succeed, and

quality of life of adults who were retained during their K-12 education?

o How did retention impact their self-esteem?

o How did retention impact their employment successes and socioeconomic status?

o How did retention impact their home life and relationships?

Research suggests that the practice of retention has far reaching negative effects on a person’s

life, from social isolation (Smith, 2013) to high correlation with dropping out of school

(Jimerson &Renshaw, 2012) to self-esteem issues that sometimes lead to trouble with the law

and unemployment (Swartz, 1995). Looking at the research in support of retention, or research

that has found situations that promote a positive experience with retention, family support and

value placed on education in the home seem to play a major role in contributing to a successful

experience with retention (Ferguson, et al., 2001). When these factors are not present, the

positive effects appear to diminish over time as new material is introduced and expectations are

heightened (Jimerson, et al., 1997; Dong, 2010). This research sought to explore retention in the

lives of the adults in this study using the research questions to determine if retention has served

as a positive or negative influence in their lives.

Research Plan

This qualitative study has a transcendental phenomenological design, and data was

collected using surveys, interviews, and a focus group. A transcendental phenomenological

design was appropriate for this study because it sought to explore how adults construct meaning

from the lived experiences related to being retained in their formal education. The goal of a

phenomenological study is to explore how a certain phenomenon is experienced consciously and

perceived by the people that experienced it (Wilson, 2002). The participants for this study were

10 adults over the age of 18 that experienced retention in their K-12 education. The participants

represented younger adults, middle-aged adults, and older adults that had differing views about

the impact that retention has had on their lives. The data analysis strategy that was employed

with this study was Moustakas’ Seven Steps (Moustakas, 1994). This strategy included

recording pertinent statements, removing repetitive statements, organizing reoccurring ideas,

feelings, and thoughts into themes, using quotes to authenticate the shared meanings, and using

the multiple perspectives offered by the participants to find the true meaning of the experience.

Delimitations

The participants of this study were adults over the age of 18 that are no longer in high

school. Adults were chosen for this study because qualitative research is limited on the impact

of retention over a long span of time. Limitations of this study include small sample

size as the study included 10 participants, geographic location, small rural town in North

Georgia, and elapsed time as adults recalled a life event many years in the past. Participant ages

ranged from 33 to 81, so memory of events was different for the younger participants, as their

memories were more recent than for the older participants.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Retention has been practiced in the United States for over a century now and has been a

controversial issue since schools became organized around specific grades. This literature

review includes a look at the theories that support or stand in opposition to retention, the history

of retention in the U.S., retention statistics, contributing factors of retention, arguments in

support and opposition to retention, and alternatives to retention. Educators have long debated

the pros and cons of retention and theorists like Gessell (1933) and Piaget (1969) offer theories

that support retention as a necessary tool that allows the student to mature and catch up. Piaget’s

theory of cognitive development (Cherry, n.d.) gives approximate ages for the different mental

stages of intelligence that human beings reach, but he states that not all people arrive at these

stages at the same ages. The stages build upon one another and people cannot be pushed into a

stage that they are not ready to enter. Gessell is credited with the Maturation Theory (Gesell,

1933) that states that children mature by an internal clock directed by genes and that children

cannot be rushed to mature ahead of this schedule. Theorists like Albert Bandura believe that

children learn by watching others and are affected by their surroundings and experiences

(Bandura, 2001; Rand 2013). Retaining a child damages self-esteem and children start

performing to match that low self-esteem. Bandura believes that children need to be in

environments where expectations are high and opportunities for catching up to peers are fostered.

Once schools became organized around grades and specific ages, retention was used as a

means to correct academic weakness and serve as an intervention, and this continued until about

1930 when social scientists began to question the effectiveness of this practice when considering

the social and emotional development of children (Rose, et. al., 1983). Social promotion became

popular and remained that way until Russia beat the U.S. in the space race by launching Sputnik

in 1957. This event caused politicians to critically look at public education in the U.S. and

standardized testing became popular as a means to set standards for promotion to the next grade.

Jackson (1975) reviewed several research articles on retention between 1960 and 1975 and

concluded that the studies were not valid and he warned educators that their retention decisions

were not grounded in solid research. Thus, social promotion became widely used once again.

The Clinton era in the 1990s and No Child Left Behind legislation at the beginning of the 21

century brought on more concern about the quality of public education, stricter standards, and a

renewed determination not to promote students that had not mastered the set standards of each

grade (Bowman, 2005; Hernandez-Tutop, 2012).

Retention statistics, for the most part, are bleak. The Condition of Education Report of

2010 reported that for the past 20 years, approximately 10% of K through 8

graders are retained

each year, with boys, African American students, and students living in poverty comprising the

majority of the retainees. In the U.S. alone, approximately 2.5 million students are retained each

year at a cost of about 14 billion dollars annually (Jimerson, Ferguson, Whipple, Anderson, &

Dalton, 2002).

There is research to support retention and research that opposes retention. The research

that supports retention and shows positive outcomes for students points to the importance of the

family unit’s support of the student and the value placed on education by the family. The

majority of research does not support the practice of retention and highlights the ineffectiveness

of this practice (Jimerson, 2001). Retention carries with it many negative effects such as a high

correlation between retention and the drop out rate, feelings of low self-esteem and isolation, and

poor reading and math scores (Jimerson, 2001).

The overwhelming amount of research that shows negative effects of retention point to

the need for interventions other than retention as this form of remediation has been ineffective

over a long span of time (Jimerson, et al., 1997; Jimerson, 2001). There is no one intervention

that will work with every child, but there are many research-based interventions that should be

used to remediate students and help them be successful enough to move on through the grades

with their peer group. Some of these successful interventions are after school programs, summer

school, year-round school, smaller class sizes, multi-age grouping, looping, numerous classroom

interventions, and the fairly new tracking system for regular education students known as

Response To Intervention (RTI) (Jimerson et al., 2006; Shepard & Smith, 1990; Lekrone &

Griffith, 2006; Klotz & Canter, 2007). RTI was first brought to the forefront in IDEA 2004

when this legislation called for more interventions in the regular education arena before students

were referred for special education testing. RTI has gained ground in schools across the country

as a tool to track academic progress and a way to avoid non-action until failure has occurred.

(Klotz & Canter, 2007).

Theoretical Framework

Educators make decisions every year about whether to retain or promote students that

have not demonstrated mastery of grade level standards. Retention and social promotion

decisions are not made lightly as educators know the drawbacks to both practices. There are

many theorists that have proposed theories about learning and development through the years

that seek to explain how the brain develops and matures and that children mature at different

rates, even though they are the same chronological age. Piaget’s theory of constructivism is a

theory that educators use to make decisions about what most children can learn at different ages.

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development is broken down into stages, and children’s movement

through the stages directly relates to how they understand the world (Cherry, n.d.). The stages

build upon each other and follow a sequence. The stages, in developmental order, are sensory

motor intelligence (birth to age 2), preoperational intelligence (age 2 to age 7), concrete

operational intelligence (age 7 to age 11), and formal operational intelligence (age 11 to adult)

(Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). As children age and mature, they move through the stages of

intelligence. The age that children reach the stages varies from child to child and children cannot

be forced into a new stage if their brains are not ready to function at that level. Piaget proposed

that schema, assimilation, and accommodation are the concepts that are the building blocks of

cognitive development. These three concepts are defined below.

Schemas are categories of knowledge that help us to interpret and understand the world.

In Piaget's view, a schema includes both a category of knowledge and the process of

obtaining that knowledge. As experiences happen, this new information is used to

modify, add to, or change previously existing schemas. Assimilation is defined as the

process of taking in new information into our previously existing schemas.

Accommodation involves changing or altering our existing schemas in light of new

information. (Cherry, n.d.)

As children progress through the different grades in schools, the mental expectations increase to

fit Piaget’s cognitive development levels. All children do not arrive at the different stages of

development at the expected age for several reasons that include but are not limited to genetics,

experiences, socio-economic level, and family situation. The children that arrive at the stages

later than expected or never arrive at higher stages are the ones that are considered for retention.

Arnold Gesell is a psychologist and pediatrician who was instrumental in the

development of the field of child development. Gesell is credited with the Maturation Theory

and believes that maturation is an active psychological process and that there is a strong

connection between maturation and learning (Gesell, 1933). His theory proposes that learning

cannot take place without maturation and maturation cannot take place without learning being

involved in the process (Gesell, 1933). Gesell believes that heredity and environment can only

be separated in analytical thinking. In reality, the separation would lead to death of an organism

(Gesell, 1933). Thus, maturity is a product of both heredity and environment.

Gesell believed that genetically directed development determines when children are ready

to learn, when they benefit from their surroundings, and what they experience in those

surroundings. Rushing children to develop ahead of this internal schedule is pointless

because all aspects of development are governed by the inner, gene-directed maturational

process. (Miazga, 2000, p. 4)

This theory could be used to support retention and individualized learning. The Maturation

Theory substantiates that retaining students that are not mature enough to move to the next level

in school, gives the student the opportunity to catch up and be successful (Rand, 2013).

The Social Cognitive Theory is a theory that could be used to oppose retention. It was

proposed by Albert Bandura and suggests that children learn by watching others and are affected

by their surroundings. People are not just observers of their surroundings, but they are active

agents of their experiences (Bandura, 2001). Most behaviors that people learn are learned from

example. Observation, imitation, and modeling are three ways that people learn from one

another. Observation leads to modeling which leads to ideas about how new behaviors should be

carried out, which leads to future action (Bandura, 1986). The theory of self-efficacy is

embedded in the social cognitive theory and this theory emphasizes the role of observational

learning and social experience in the development of the personality (Bandura, 1989). Bandura

defined self-efficacy as one’s beliefs in their ability to succeed in certain situations. External

experiences and self-perception influence self-efficacy and self-efficacy in turn influences one’s

self-esteem (Bandura, 1989). Those who believe in their cognitive abilities tend to master

difficult situations and those that don’t believe that they possess these cognitive abilities usually

avoid difficult tasks and don’t put forth the effort to succeed (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Capara, &

Pastorelli, 1996). Pajares (2002) discusses low self-efficacy and the self-fulfilling prophecy and

how retention could encourage students to feel like failures and thus, start performing poorly.

This could start a vicious cycle of not believing in one’s self, performing poorly on tests and

tasks, failing the class or grade, and repeating that cycle all over again (Roberts, 2008). Self-

efficacy is nurtured by one’s surroundings and experiences. This theory could be used to support

social promotion in that students need to be promoted to foster high self-efficacy in order to

perform well and eventually catch up to their peers. Also, being in an environment where their

peers are learning at the expected level will positively influence them to start performing at the

expected level in the classroom.

History of Retention in the United States

In 1852, Massachusetts passed the first mandatory school attendance law in America and

by 1918, all American children were required to complete an elementary education. The one

room schoolhouse marked the beginning of public education in America. Retention was not seen

as a problematic practice at that time due to all grades being lumped together and progression to

the next level of study being dependent upon mastery of skills at each level (Steiner, 1986).

Around the mid eighteen hundreds, graded schools began to replace the one room schoolhouse in

urban areas in the United States as the U.S. sought to follow in the footsteps of Great Britain,

where graded schools were a commonality (Rose, Medway, Cantrell, & Marus, 1983). Graded

schools organized themselves around the age of the students and developed rigid criteria for each

grade that had to be mastered for children to be promoted to the next grade level. Over the next

seventy years, the graded school concept spread to rural areas as well (Holmes & Matthews,

1983). The mastery level for each grade was extremely rigorous, and as a result, about half of all

students were retained at some point in their eight years of schooling (Steiner, 1986).

The rampant use of retention as a means to correct academic weakness and serve as an

intervention continued until about 1930 when social scientists began to question the effectiveness

of this practice when considering the social and emotional development of children (Rose, et. al.,

1983). Also at this time, educators and legislators began talking about the most efficient

structure for schools and merit promotion seriously hindered organizational efficiency

(Hernandez-Tutop, 2012). Before this time, the educational system in the US was structured

around the best and brightest and now educators started structuring schools around the abilities

and needs of the greatest bulk of students. The best and the brightest were not forgotten as

ability tracking became popular during this time period (Hernandez-Tutop, 2012). With this

challenge to the practice of retention, social promotion gained popularity over the next 30-year

period. Instead of retaining so many students that had fallen short of the academic goals of the

grade, schools began to socially promote students. Students were moved on to the next grade,

put into groups by ability and provided remedial instruction. This greatly reduced the number of

students retained and encouraged educators to consider the whole child when making

retention/promotion decisions. Factors such as age, physical size, mental maturity, home

background, and attendance were all considered to make the best possible decision for the child

(Hernandez-Tutop, 2012; Rose, et. al., 1983). After Sputnik in 1957, where Russia usurped the

U.S. in the space race, the state of education in the U.S. became scrutinized by politicians, and in

the early 1960s, educators started noticing a decline in standardized test scores, attributing this to

the reduced promotion standards of the public schools. At this time, a cry for stricter academic

standards at each grade level and more rigorous promotion criteria started gaining ground in the

educational and political arenas. Minimum competency testing programs became popular about

this time as a means to set minimum standards of mastery for promotion purposes (Rose, et. al,

1983). In the 1970s, a research study conducted by Jackson (1975) began to challenge the notion

that grade retention was a better alternative than social promotion. Jackson reviewed 44 original

research sources from the 1960s and early 1970s and concluded that the studies were not valid.

He stated that “there is no reliable body of evidence to indicate that grade retention is more

beneficial than grade promotion for students with serious academic or adjustment difficulties”

(Jackson, 1975, p. 627). Jackson warned teachers that if they retained students they were doing

this without valid research to back up their decisions (Jackson, 1975). Social promotion gained

ground again during this time as research was conducted that linked retention and the drop out

rate (Roberts, 2007).

Once again, in the 1980s, the popularity of social promotion began to fade as

standardized test scores started to drop, and the report entitled, A Nation At Risk brought the

practice of retention to the forefront again as an answer to declining test scores and decreasing

academic rigor (Bowman, 2005). In the 1990s, President Clinton called for stricter standards in

public schools and an end to the practice of social promotion. Since the lowering of standards

and the increase in social promotion, U.S. schools had fallen in their academic standing when

compared to other countries. This decrease in world ranking started a political agenda that still

seeks to raise the rigor of academic standards at each grade level in an attempt to gain ground in

the educational forefront on the world scene. The Clinton administration’s attempt to end social

promotion gave educators political permission to reinstate retention, and retention gained in

popularity once again in the 1990s. But, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) reported in

1997 that many schools across the nation were still practicing social promotion, regardless of

public policies and laws put in place to end the practice (Bowman, 2005).

After Clinton, President George W. Bush and his administration passed the No Child Left

Behind Act (NCLB) in an attempt to close the achievement gap and assure the quality education

of all students across the United States. NCLB set the goal of 100% of public school students

across the US functioning at the meets or exceeds level on a minimum competency test chosen

by the individual states by the year 2014. This was to be achieved through enhanced

accountability of all educators through the measurement of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

This accountability was intended to promote the hiring of highly qualified teachers and

principals, encourage English instruction for immigrant students where English is a second

language, and promote parental choice when schools do not make the grade. This stringent act

refueled interest in retention and retention gained ground as an intervention tool once again

(Hernandez-Tutop, 2012).

The newest educational initiative, Common Core, provides even more rigor than NCLB.

Student achievement under NCLB was measured using minimum competency tests and students

were graduating still lacking in the problem solving skills necessary for college and career

readiness. According to the Common Core State Standards Initiative,

The standards are designed to build upon the most advanced current thinking about

preparing all students for success in college, career, and life. This will result in moving

even the best state standards to the next level. In fact, since this work began, there has

been an explicit agreement that no state would lower its standards. The standards were

informed by the best in the country, the highest international standards, and evidence and

expertise about educational outcomes. We need college- and career-ready standards

because even in highperforming states, students are graduating and passing all the

required tests but still need remediation in their postsecondary work.

(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014)

In a time of increased academic rigor across K-12 education, expanded emphasis on standardized

testing, and increased accountability for public schools in the US, the practice of retention versus

social promotion will continue to impact best practices and policy decisions (David, 2015).

Contributing Factors for Low Performing Students

Students that struggle in school do share some commonalities. The majority of students

that are retained are boys (Jimerson, et al., 1997; Meisels & Liaw, 1993), are members of a

minority group (Alexander, Entwisel, & Dauber, 1994; Lorence & Dworkin, 2006), and suffer

from poverty (Morris, 2001; Meisels & Liaw 1993). Many retained students have parents that

are not involved in their education and thus provide little support for their children’s learning

(Jimerson, et al., 1997; Miedel & Reynolds, 1999), and have mothers that have less than or equal

to a high school diploma (Ferguson, et al., 2001; Cairns, Cairns, & Neckerman, 1989). Other

common characteristics of retained students are English is their second language, students are

younger than same grade peers, students make frequent school changes, high absenteeism,

attention span problems, low self-esteem in terms of academic competence, behavior problems in

a school setting, and poor peer relationships (Jimerson & Renshaw, 2012).

There are many research studies that show that boys are retained more often than girls.

In fact, according to Jimerson, et al., 1997, boys are twice as likely to be retained as girls. Boys

and girls generally produce similar scores on tests of cognitive ability, but boys have lower

classroom grades, have more discipline issues, are more likely to qualify for special education

services, have a real detachment to school, and report lower enjoyment of school than girls

(Jacob, 2002). These school difficulties are attributed to low non-cognitive skills of many boys.

Examples of non-cognitive skills are attention spans, organizational skills, ability to work with

others, and willingness to ask for and receive extra help (Duncan & Dunifon, 1998).

Research has shown that poverty is a contributing factor to retention. “Children raised in

poverty rarely choose to behave differently, but they are faced daily with overwhelming

challenges that affluent children never have to confront, and their brains have adapted to

suboptimal conditions in ways that undermine good school performance” (Jensen, 2009, p. 14).

Students living in poverty come from a culture where the parents are concerned about the basic

needs of life, and education for many of them takes a back seat. In his book entitled, Teaching

with Poverty in Mind, Jensen (2009) discusses four risk factors that negatively impact the

education of children raised in poverty. These are emotional and social challenges, acute and

chronic stressors, cognitive lags, and health and safety issues (Jensen, 2009). Emotional and

social challenges for children of poverty many times start even before they are born. Teen

mothers and poor prenatal care often lead to a weak attachment of the mother to the unborn child

and then to the infant. This detachment leads to feelings of insecurity for the child that spills

over into their school life. Acute and chronic stressors for children living in poverty are the

stresses associated with exposure to abuse and violence and the stress of living in poor

conditions that lingers over a long period of time. Life experiences influence cognitive

development and many children that live in a low socioeconomic environment lack experiences

necessary for brain development. Malnutrition, environmental hazards, and poor health care are

examples of health and safety issues that plague many children of poverty. Health of children

and achievement go hand in hand. If the body is not healthy, then the brain is not receiving what

it needs to function properly (Jensen, 2009).

Another problematic factor for low academic performance, higher drop out rates, and

juvenile delinquency is school absenteeism (McCluskey, Bynum, & Patchin, 2004). Chronic

absenteeism is defined as missing 10 percent of the school year or about 18 days per year.

(Anonymous, 2012). Only six states keep records of chronic absenteeism and these six states

report rates between six and 23 percent. Nationally, the average rate of absenteeism is reported

at about 10 percent, but experts believe it is closer to 15 percent (Anonymous, 2012).

Nationally, chronic absenteeism in kindergarten results in low academic performance in first

grade. As the years go by, the achievement gap gets larger and the effects of poor attendance

become more detrimental to graduating on time, if at all (Anonymous, 2012).

Changing schools frequently is another contributing factor to retention. Transient

students are defined as students that move from school to school staying at each school for a

period of time that does not coincide with the natural break in a year or graduation from a

particular school (Parr, 2010). Parr (2010) conducted a study of transient students that had

changed schools at least two times before the end of the third grade year. He compared them to

students that had not changed schools and looked at academic success on standardized

assessments of reading and math. The transient students scored significantly lower than the non-

transient students, but the impact of transiency on student achievement was low for students at

risk of academic failure compared to the other risk factors for low performing students, such as

socioeconomic status, limited English proficiency, and having an Individualized Educational

Plan (IEP) (Parr, 2010). Student transients are not recognized under NCLB as an at-risk group,

but transient students are more likely to fall into the recognized at-risk subgroups than their non-

transient counterparts (Parr, 2010).

Retention

“Grade retention refers to the practice of non-promotion of students to the next grade

level upon completion of the school year” (Jimerson, Carlson, Rotert, Egeland & Sroufe, 1997,

p. 3). Educators wrestle with retention versus social promotion every year as they struggle to

find the best options for low-performing students. The following are some myths that many

educators buy into when trying to justify retention decisions and the research that has been

conducted in response to these myths.

• More time will help students catch up. Research: Struggling students rarely catch up to

their similar promoted peers (Jimerson & Renshaw, 2012).

• Retention supports student achievement and acclimation. Research: Retention is linked

to poor achievement in all academic areas, low self-esteem, and behavior issues

(Jimerson & Renshaw, 2012).

• Retention is not a harmful practice. Research: Retention has been linked to emotional

problems, drug and alcohol abuse, cigarette use, early sexual activity, and violent

behaviors during adolescence (Jimerson & Renshaw, 2012).

• Retention assures academic success in subsequent years. Research: There is a high

positive correlation between retention and dropping out of school (Jimerson &

Renshaw, 2012).

• Retaining students in lower grades is fine, but retention in later grades produces

negative outcomes. Research: Comparison of students who were retained in lower

grades to students who were retained in later grades fails to show benefits of early grade

retention (Jimerson & Renshaw, 2012).

Research studies indicate that students are generally retained in the previous grade for another

year for failure to meet academic standards set for the grade, immaturity, poor attendance, and

the notion that a repetition of the learning year will serve as a quality remediation tool to produce

successful students (Bowman, 2005). “But research does not support this belief and points out

many negative effects of grade retention as an intervention tool” (Silberglitt, et al, 2006, p. 135).

Retention statistics as reported in the Condition of Education Report of 2010 (NCES,

2010) are as follows. Over the past 20 years, the percentage of students that were retained

between kindergarten and eighth grade has remained at about 10 percent each year. Public

schools retain students more often than private schools, boys are retained more often than girls,

African American students are retained more often than students of other races, students from

high poverty homes where the mother does not possess a high school education have a greater

chance of being retained, and students from the southern region of the United States are retained

more often than students from other regions (NCES, 2009). More statistics gathered over the

past several years indicate that by the 9

grade, 30 to 50% of all students have been held back

sometime in their K-12 education, approximately 2.5 million students are retained in the U.S.

each year, and this extra year of schooling costs the U.S. taxpayer in excess of 14 billion dollars

annually (Jimerson, Ferguson, Whipple, Anderson, & Dalton, 2002). These statistics indicate

that U.S. schools are not a successful endeavor for a significant number of students (Corman,

2003). This highlights the need to find better interventions for students other than retention and

social promotion. Eisner (2003) wrote an article for Phi Delta Kappan that looks at 12

questionable assumptions of education in the United States. He writes that assumptions about

education are so deeply rooted in our culture that true, meaningful change is hard to make

because the examination of these assumptions is rarely done and how schools function and run

are taken for granted. One assumption that he names is “The aim of schooling is get all students

to the same place at the same time” (Eisner, 2003, p. 1). He compares schooling to a train. All

students get on board about five or six years of age and get off, if reasonably successful, at about

18 years of age. Our culture promotes common goals for the vast majority of students and to

differentiate outcomes for different students condemns some students to lower positions in

society. This assumption makes true differentiation impossible. He implies that it is impractical

to expect everyone to fit into the same mold and find success with the same type of activities and

interests. True differentiation would take into consideration the interests, life experiences, and

abilities of each student. Another questionable assumption highlighted by Eisner is that age

grading is the best school organization. He points out that age grading is convenient and easy to

manage, but that it goes against what research reveals about child development. He uses the

range of reading abilities within a single class as proof that age grading is not what’s best for

children. With each higher grade, there are larger reading ranges. For example, in second grade

there is a about a two year age range in reading abilities, in third grade, there is about a three year

range, and the range goes up with each successive year.

Arguments in Support of Retention

There have been several studies conducted over the past several years that yielded

positive and mixed results when it comes to the effectiveness of grade retention (Lorence &

Dworkin, 2006; Jimerson, et al., 1997; Dong, 2010; Greene & Winters, 2006; Alexander, et al.,

1994). Lorence and Dworkin (2006) conducted a longitudinal research study in Texas and found

a positive relationship between retention and reading achievement among the third graders that

were representative of the largest racial/ethnic groups in Texas (African Americans and

Hispanics). These researchers concluded that there was no evidence that early grade retention

was harmful to children with low academic performance (Lorence & Dworkin, 2006). Jimerson,

et al. (1997) used the student participants in the Minnesota mother/child interaction project as the

subjects for their research. These children were put into three groups, those that were retained in

kindergarten, first, second, or third grade, those that were low performing but socially promoted,

and a control group of students that did not fit into either of the two previous categories. The

retained group did show improvements in math achievement for the retained year, but this gain

dissipated as the students entered into higher grades and faced new material (Jimerson, et al.,

1997). Dong (2010) conducted a study using data from the US Early Childhood Longitudinal

Study – Kindergarten Cohort 1998-1999. Fall and spring testing was done on these students in

kindergarten, first, and third grade. The sample contained 8672, of which 8391 were promoted

after kindergarten and 281 were retained in kindergarten. The results were positive for the

retainees in the beginning, but the positive results diminished over time (Dong, 2010). Greene

and Winters (2006) conducted a study to examine how beneficial Florida’s test based promotion

policy was to students two years after the retention. The results revealed that the retained

students made significant gains in reading as compared to their socially promoted peers (Greene

& Winters, 2006). Alexander, et al. (1994) conducted a study comprised of 800 students who

began first grade in 1982. Looking at eight years worth of data on these students, they

determined that the grade repeaters did better in the year of repetition and for several years after.

These students also showed improved attitudes towards school and higher self-esteem

(Alexander, et al., 1994).

Ferguson, et al. (2001) conducted a study that followed 106 students from kindergarten to

the eleventh grade. Students were put into one of four groups that reflected their educational

experience with grade retention. The four categories were: Students that had been retained in K,

, or 2

grade; students that had been retained in K, 1

, or 2

grade but put into a transition

room; students that had been recommended for retention in K, 1

, or 2

grade but were socially

promoted; and students that were promoted on a regular schedule. One of the research questions

was “Which variables are associated with “successful” and “highly successful” outcomes of

retained students? “Successful” retained students were those whose GPAs in the 7

grade were

3.2 or higher and scored in the 53

percentile on the 8

grade Stanford Achievement Test (SAT).

“Highly successful” retained students were those whose GPAs in the 7

grade and scores on the

grade SAT were above the mean of the promoted students. The findings of this research

study suggest that the main contributing factors to success after experiencing retention were

higher educational level of the mothers, higher value on education by the family unit, higher

socioeconomic status (SES), lower kindergarten social functioning deficits, younger age in

kindergarten, and higher scores on early readiness measures upon entering kindergarten

(Ferguson, et. al., 2001).

Looking at the research in support of retention or research that has found situations that

promote a positive experience with retention, family support and value placed on education in

the home seem to play a major role in contributing to a successful experience with retention.

When these factors are not present, the positive effects appear to diminish over time as new

material is introduced and expectations are heightened.

Arguments Opposed to Retention

Due to the increasing demands of standardized testing and the accountability push of the

last two decades, retaining students has gotten more popular. In direct opposition to the great

bulk of research that does not support retention as a successful strategy for struggling students,

educational policy still promotes the practice of retention. Jimerson (2001) conducted a review of

20 research studies done between 1990 and 1999 and reported that these studies fail to

demonstrate that retention provides greater benefits to students than social promotion. Below are

some of the research studies and their findings.

• Grade retention increases the likelihood of dropping out of school by 20 to 50 percent

(Jimerson, 1999).

• Seventy-eight percent of high school drop-outs were retained at least once in their K-12

education (Tuck, 1989).

• Students retained in elementary school are at a greater risk of dropping out of high school

(Jimerson, Anderson, & Whipple, 2002).

• Grade retention has failed to show long-term gains on socio-emotional and achievement

outcomes (Jimerson, et al., 1997).

• Grade retention has been highlighted as the most significant factor in dropping out of

school (Rumberger, 1995).

• Promoted students fared better than retained students in comparisons of academic

achievement in all areas, social adjustment, emotional adjustment, behavior, self-concept,

attitude toward school, and attendance (Holmes & Matthews, 1984).

• Although retention might show short-term gains, retained students were more likely to

fail in subsequent years than their socially promoted peers (Shepard & Smith, 1990).

This conclusion is right in line with previous research studies done between 1900 and 1990.

While all of the studies conducted have limitations and some of the earlier studies have

methodological concerns (Jimerson, et al., 1997; Holmes, 1989), the sheer bulk of the research

that points to the same conclusion of the ineffectiveness of retention is powerful and cannot be

overlooked (Jimerson, 2001). Jackson (1975) reviewed 30 studies published between 1911 and

1973 and found that although there were some benefits to retaining students, there were even

greater benefits to promoting them. Still, other researchers have reported negative relationships

between retention and successful student outcomes (Holmes, 1989; Holmes and Matthews, 1983;

Hernandez-Tutop, 2012). Bowman (2005) also reviewed related research and found that

retaining students does not improve their academic accomplishment and felt that the research

does not support academic retention. Retention should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and

all options available should be considered (Bowman, 2005). A study done by Hong and Yu

(2007) shows that even retention in kindergarten does not produce lasting results. Math and

reading scores may improve for the retention year, but the results fade quickly in subsequent

years (Hong &Yu, 2007).

Social Implications. Getting an education is more than going to class and studying for

tests. Students learn to interact with their peers and adults and these interactions help build their

social skills and self-esteem. Socialization is an important part of the developmental process,

and school is the primary place that children develop socialization skills. Children are socialized

by how they see themselves in relation to their peers and how they fit into a group of friends.

Most students experience difficult times with socialization in school, even under the best of

circumstances (Roberts, 2008). When a child is held back, they basically lose the friendships

they had made in the previous years and have to start all over again with making friends and

fitting into a new group (Roberts, 2008). The old friends are still in the school, but the student is

cut off from those friends as students in different grades are on a different schedule and rarely

have the time to see each other. This change is a change in the child’s culture and can negatively

impact the child’s development (Vgotsky, 1978). This creates feelings of isolation, loneliness,

and poor self-worth. Just as damaging to a child’s feelings of self-worth is how the non-retained

students treat and feel about the retained students. Walters and Borgers (1995) reported that non-

retained students were more critical of their retained classmates and less accepting of them, thus

adding to the socialization problems that occur with retained students. Research shows that an

unintended consequence of retention is poor emotional health of children (Leckrone & Griffith,

2006). Jimerson, et al. (1997) conducted a longitudinal study that was comprised of 190 children

in a Minnesota mother/child interaction project. These children were put into three groups, those

that were retained in kindergarten, first, second, or third grade, those that were low performing

but socially promoted, and a control group of students that did not fit into either of the two

previous categories. The results just on the socio-emotional factors resulted in the retained group

having significantly lower emotional health by the sixth grade. When children are held back,

their emotional and social adjustment is worse than children that are socially promoted

(Jimerson, et al., 1997). Many times retained students end up being behavior problems because

they do not believe in their abilities, do not feel that teachers and administrators believe in them,

and end up trying to get attention any way that they can. In a longitudinal study conducted by

Jimerson et al (1997), retained students displayed more negative classroom behaviors and were

less engaged in the learning activities of the classroom than their low performing, promoted

peers (Jimerson & Kaufman, 2003). Many studies point out that maladjustment to behavioral

expectations is high for retained students (Cairns, Cairns, & Neckermanm 1989; Jimerson, et al.,

1997; Jimerson & Kaufman, 2003). Jimerson (2001) conducted a review of 20 studies about

retention done between 1990 and 1999. Sixteen of the 20 studies concentrated on socio-

emotional outcomes, and 77 effect sizes were computed. Of the 77 effect sizes, a mean of -0.22

was computed for the retained students, meaning that the retained students scored 0.22 standard

deviation points below the comparison group of promoted students on social, emotional,

behavioral, self-concept, and ratings of adjustment (Jimerson, 2001). It is the belief of many

researchers that the biggest indicator of failing in elementary school is to fail a grade. Many

times, the retention leads to feelings of low self-worth and poor attitudes about school and the

work associated with school (Carlton & Winsler, 1999). Retained students’ success in their

school career is hampered by a poor self-concept and lack of motivation (Rose, et al., 1983).

Drop Out Rate. The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) published a

report in 2013 that provided drop out data from the 2009-10 school year for high schools in the

United States. A dropout is defined as a student that

…was enrolled in school at some time during the previous school year; was not enrolled

at the beginning of the current school year; has not graduated from high school or

completed a state- or district-approved education program; and does not meet any of the

following exclusionary conditions: transfer to another public school district, private

school, or state- or district -approved education program; temporary absence due to

suspension or school-approved illness; or death (Stillwell & Sable, 2013, p. 2).

The average freshman graduation rate (AFGR) was 78.2% in 2009-10, which is an “estimate of

the percent of high school students who graduate within four years of first starting the 9

grade”

(Stillwell & Sable, 2013, p. 1). In the U.S. 514,238 public school students dropped out of grades

9-12 in the 2009-10 school year, which represents 3.4% of the high school population in the U.S.

Students in 9

grade had a drop out rate of 2.6% and students in 12

grade had a drop out rate of

5.1%. Drop out statistics by race are as follows: Asian/Pacific Islander – 1.9%, white – 2.3%,

American Indian/Alaska Native – 6.7%, Black – 5.5%, Hispanic – 5%. The drop out rate among

males was 3.8% and the drop out rate among females was 2.9% (Stillwell & Sable, 2013).

Jimerson, Ferguson, Whipple, Anderson, & Dalton (2002) did a comprehensive review of

research that studied the relationship between grade retention and drop out rate and found that

retention was the overwhelming common denominator for students that dropped out of school.

According to Jimerson, et al. (2002), the experience of grade retention has been shown to

influence many factors related to dropping out of high school, namely student’s self-esteem,

socioemotional adjustment, peer relations, and school engagement. The research shows that

students that are retained once in their K-8 education are 40 to 50% more likely to drop out of

school than their promoted peers, and students that are retained more than once are 90% more

likely to drop out (Mann, 1987). Penna and Tallerico (2005) reported:

Retention-in-grade is the single most powerful predictor of dropping out of school. It is

even more powerful than parents’ income or mother’s educational level, two family-

related factors long associated with student achievement and school completion. In fact,

dropouts are five times more likely to have repeated a grade than are high school

graduates. (p. 13)

More than 7,000 students drop out of school every day and without a high school

diploma, these individuals will be more likely to be unemployed during their lifetime, on

governmental assistance, and in and out of prison than their peers that graduated (Alliance for

Excellence Education, 2009). High school drop outs will be more likely to be teen parents, less

likely to raise children that will graduate from high school, more likely to commit crimes, and

more likely to depend on governmental health care (Wolfe and Hughes, 2002). Their earning

potential will be seriously crippled as well. In 2011, the median earnings for those without a

high school diploma were $22,900, $30,000 for those with a high school diploma, $37,000 for

those with an associates degree, $45,000 for those with a bachelor’s degree, and $59,200 for

those with a master’s degree (NCES, 2013).

Academic Implications. Although there is some research to support retention as an

effective practice for academic performance, the bulk of the research shows that retention has a

negative impact on academic achievement (Rand, 2013). Holmes (1989) produced a meta-

analysis of 63 studies between 1925 and 1989 where students were tracked in the educational

process and compared to promoted students. In summary, 54 of those studies reflected a

negative impact of retention on academic achievement. The nine studies that reflected a positive

impact of retention on academic achievement showed that the benefits appeared to diminish over

time. Lloyd, Griffith, Lane, & Tankersley (2010) conducted a study where they used reading

data from the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) to research reading growth rates in

878 high school students that had been retained in their K-8 education in comparison to 878 high

school peers that were not retained in their K-12 education. Their findings revealed that the

retained students had significantly lower reading achievement in the eighth grade and had slower

reading growth in middle and high school as compared to the non-retained group (Lloyd et al.,

2010). McCoy and Reynolds (1999) conducted a study where one of the purposes was to

analyze the long-term effects of retention on academic achievement. The subjects for the study

were 1,164 low income, minority students from the Chicago Longitudinal Study. 28% of the

sample was retained by the age of 14. The results revealed that there was a strong association

between retention and poor reading and math scores by age 14. “These findings suggest that

intervention approaches other than grade retention are needed to better promote school

achievement and adjustment” (McCoy & Reynolds, 1999, p. 273).

In spite of the overwhelming amount of research that shows that retention is an

ineffective practice, there are proponents of retention that feel that early grade retention is

effective and the justified exception (Silberglitt, et al., 2006). Silberglitt, et al (2006) conducted

a research study with the intent of examining whether the timing of grade retention made a

difference in academic achievement. The longitudinal study of 49 students tracked reading

scores from first through eighth grade. The study revealed that students retained in grades K-2

had reading gains similar to students retained in grades 3-5. This study does not support the

notion that early retention is an effective practice.

Jimerson (1999) conducted a longitudinal study that was comprised of 190 children in a

Minnesota mother/child interaction project. These children were put into three groups: Those

that were retained in kindergarten, first, second, or third grade; those that were low performing

but socially promoted; and a control group of students that did not fit into either of the two

previous categories. One of the research questions of this research study was “What is the

association between grade retention and academic adjustment in high school” (Jimerson, 1999, p.

258)? The results suggest that the retained group of students experienced significantly lower

academic achievement than the students in the low performing, but socially promoted group, and

the control group. There did not appear to be any significant difference between the low

achieving, socially promoted group and the control group.

Alternatives to Retention

Some educators view retention as a lesson in responsibility for unmotivated students and

believe that another year in the same grade with the exact same curriculum will foster an

increase in achievement (Larsen & Akmal, 2007). However, longitudinal research does not

support grade retention as an intervention (Jimerson et al., 1997). Even the research that has

found some benefits to retention reports that the gains tend to be short-lived. The overwhelming

amount of research that has been conducted has found retention to be an ineffective practice in

many aspects of a person’s life (achievement, socioemotional health, graduation rate, potential

earnings, financial independence, criminal activity) and cannot be overlooked. Alternatives to

retention and social promotion are available and need to be explored and perfected.

Most educational professionals and researchers recognize that neither repeating a grade

nor merely moving on to the next grade provides the necessary scaffolding to improve

academic and social skills for the students at-risk of academic failure. Instead, it is

necessary to implement and examine remedial strategies that can facilitate academic

success (Jimerson, 2001, p. 433).

“As higher academic standards have emerged as a prominent national issue, it is

important for legislators, administrators, and teachers to look for pathways to academic success

for students who do not meet district or state standards of achievement” (Lekrone & Griffith,

2006, p. 57). Research provides support and evidence of effectiveness for many different

educational interventions. Preschool programs, before and after school programs, year-round

school, and summer school are some alternatives to retention and social promotion that have

proven effective (Jimerson et al., 2006; Shepard & Smith, 1990). Other interventions that have

proven track records are smaller class sizes, multiage grouping, and looping, which is a practice

where one teacher moves up to the next grade with a class of students. (Lekrone & Griffith,

2006).

In addition to systems and schools providing alternative programs to help meet the needs

of struggling students, teachers need to practice research based interventions in the classroom

with the needs of the individual child in mind (Jimerson et al., 2006). There is no one single

intervention that works with every low-performing child, but there are many research-based

interventions available for teachers to use (Jimerson, et al., 2006). Direct instruction, Curriculum

Based Measurement, cooperative learning, and the use of mnemonic strategies are just a few of

the interventions available to classroom teachers (Jimerson, et al., 2006). Differentiated

instruction is a widely used term in current teacher evaluation measures and there are many

sources that provide suggestions for classrooms teachers to reach all learners. Carol Ann

Tomlinson is one educational specialist that believes that differentiation is not a set of strategies

for teaching, but a philosophy with a set of core beliefs. Some of the core beliefs are as follows:

Students who are the same age differ in their readiness to learn, their interests, their styles

of learning, their experiences, and their life circumstances. The differences in students

are significant enough to make a major impact on what students need to learn, the pace at

which they need to learn it, and the support they need from teachers and others to learn it

well. Students will learn best when supportive adults push them slightly beyond where

they can work without assistance. Students are more effective learners when classrooms

and schools create a sense of community in which students feel significant and respected.

The central job of schools is to maximize the capacity of each student. (Tomlinson, 2003)

Teachers, when differentiated instruction is occurring, use several strategies for teaching and

many interventions to reach all types of learners. Differentiated classrooms provide various

options for taking in information, making sense of the new knowledge, and communicating what

was learned (Tomlinson, 2003). Whole class instruction, small group instruction, and student-

centered group work are three strategies that are used in differentiated classrooms that allow

students to find a method that works for them. Assessment in a differentiated classroom begins

with a pretest to determine which students know more and which students know less about a

topic and this data is used to drive the instruction (Tomlinson, 2003).

Jerry Aldridge (2010) reviewed several differentiated practices that are research based for

the classroom teacher. Self-Regulated Strategies Development in Writing is one of those

strategies. This strategy highlights the need to differentiate the content, process, and product so

that students can individualize the method to best fit their needs (Aldridge, 2010). Another

research-based strategy is matching the style of instruction to the style of reading (Carbo, 2009).

Carbo (2009) identifies two types of readers, global and analytical. Global readers move from

whole to part and analytical readers move from part to whole. Her article offers many strategies

for differentiating reading instruction to match reading style. The Virtual History Museum

(VHM) is a differentiated tool that helps teachers teach the regular education curriculum in social

studies to students with disabilities (Bouck, Courtad, Heutsche, Okolo, & Eglert, 2009). This

tool is a free web-based program that utilizes the Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

approach. UDL is a flexible approach to curriculum design that gives all individuals an equal

opportunity to learn and be productive (Bouck, et al., 2009).

Ollerton (2014) feels that differentiation in the classroom is inevitable because no two

students are exactly alike. He feels that teachers need to capitalize upon this natural occurrence

and offer more opportunities for students to express their different ideas and varying ways of

arriving at answers to problems. One example that he gives is to partner up students and ask

them to think together of all the different ways that they could find the answer to 23 + 19 or tell

them that the answer is 42 and ask them what might be the question (Ollerton, 2014). Ollerton

also talks about the art of questioning strategies in a differentiated classroom. The teacher must

know her students’ abilities and include all students in the discussion by asking students

questions that match their ability level (Ollerton, 2014). More advanced students would get

harder questions such as to justify a previous answer and weaker students would get easier

questions such as to offer another example. Questioning in the classroom needs to move away

from the traditional raise your hand if you know the answer to randomized ways of calling on

students to participate in the class (Ollerton, 2014).

Sherry Parrish (2010) wrote a book entitled “Number Talks” that details for teachers how

to do the very thing that Ollerton is suggesting. Her method is all based on getting students to do

mental math throughout their elementary years and highlighting all the different ways that

students think about solving various math problems. Her method is based on moving students

away from their desks and the use of paper and pencil, putting a math problem on the board,

asking them to quietly think about the answer, then calling on different students to detail for the

teacher how they arrived at their answer (Parrish, 2010). This method encourages students to do

mental math, highlights the many different ways to arrive at an answer, and if done well,

encourages risk-taking in a safe environment. All of these outcomes facilitate differentiation

within the classroom.

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a support system for struggling students that is fairly

new to public education as it has been around for only about eight or nine years. Its goal is to

eliminate the wait to fail system that has been unsuccessful for struggling students for so long

(Klotz & Canter, 2007). It is practiced now in all states and has a cause-effect relationship

between interventions for low-performing students and their response to that intervention as

progress is monitored and measured along a four-tiered system (Brown-Chidsey & Steege,

2010). Students that are struggling to master the standards and skills of their grade level are

identified through standardized and classroom testing, given researched-based interventions

targeted to their academic weaknesses, and monitored for progress. Those that are still

struggling are given further interventions and progress monitored again. The students that are

not showing gains continue through the four step program, with the fourth step being special

education testing. This individualized plan of interventions travels with the student to successive

grades so that teachers know the struggles at the beginning of the year and can use that

knowledge to continue delivering research-based interventions as needed (Bradley, Danielson, &

Doolittle, 2005). The essential components of an RTI program are standards-based classrooms

offering high quality, research-based instruction, the use of a universal screener to determine

which students are struggling and need extra support, a multi-tiered system where interventions

become more intense and individualized to the students needs at increasing tiers, a collaborative

approach by school personnel to offer exactly what the student needs, constant monitoring of

student progress at each tier to determine if student is meeting the goals of the tier, parental

involvement throughout the process, and documentation that special education timelines as

outlined in IDEA 2004 are being followed (Klotz & Canter, 2007).

The RTI process has four tiers that are centered on standards-based instruction, universal

screening, and progress monitoring (Response to Intervention, 2011). As a student moves

through the tiers, the interventions get more intense and the number of students at each

successive level becomes less (Response to Intervention, 2011). Everyone is on tier 1, which is

research-based strategies delivered in a standards-based classroom. If a student struggles at tier

1, they are moved to tier 2. Tier 2 is needs-based learning where specific trouble spots are

identified with the universal screener and research-based interventions are used in an effort to

close the gap that exists. If a student is successful at tier 2 then the student is monitored to make

sure he or she continues improving. If the student is unsuccessful at tier 2, then the student is

moved on to tier 3, which is the student support team level. At this level the instruction is even

more individualized and the progress or lack thereof is monitored. If the student is successful at

tier three, he or she is once again monitored to make sure the improvement continues. If he or

she is not successful at tier three, then the student moves on to tier four, and special education

testing occurs to see if a learning disability is involved. Successful RTI programs must contain

the following: Strong school leadership, a collaborative environment, teachers and administrators

being willing to offer a wide range of research-based interventions, teachers trained in

administering universal screenings, and parents being kept up to date on the progress of their

children (Klotz & Canter, 2007).

Summary

Retention, the act of holding a student back in a grade due to him or her not mastering the

standards of the grade, has been practiced in the United States since the days of the one room

schoolhouse. Retention and social promotion have gone back and forth over the past century as

the preferred methods for dealing with low performing students. Since the Clinton

administration’s opposition to social promotion in the early 1990s, and with the rigorous

accountability measures of NCLB of the Bush administration, retention of students has

increased. Still, educators wrestle with retention versus social promotion every year as they

struggle to find the best options for low performing students. There have been some studies that

report positive effects of retention, but the bulk of research that has been conducted over the last

75 years does not support the practice of retention, as it points out many negative effects this

practice has on the students that are held back. The students that seem to turn retention into a

positive experience are the ones that have families, especially mothers, that value education and

are involved in their educational process. But, the majority of students that are held back have

less than desirable lifestyles and family situations. Most students that are struggling learners and

candidates for retention suffer from poverty, broken homes, low educational level of the mother,

and families that do not value education. Research suggests that the negative effects of retention

live on throughout the life of the student and are commonly associated with social, emotional and

behavioral problems, failure to complete high school, unemployment, and difficulty with the law.

The correlation between retention and dropping out of school is very strong, with retained

students being two to eleven times more likely to drop out than socially promoted students. “The

association of grade retention and high school dropout is disconcerting and seems to be the most

common deleterious outcome during adolescence” (Jimerson & Ferguson, 2007, p. 334).

According to Schwartz (1995), dropouts make up about half of the heads of households for

families living on welfare and about half of the population of those in prison.

“Research reveals that neither grade retention or social promotion alone is an effective

strategy for improving students’ academic, behavioral, and social and emotional success”

(Jimerson & Renshaw, 2012, p. 12). Alternatives to retention and social promotion must be

employed more to improve upon the negative statistics associated with retaining students. The

goal is to educate students at their level so that they can earn a living for themselves and their

families and be productive members of society, unlike the outcomes that are occurring for most

retained students. Summer school, year-round school, multi-age grouping, smaller class sizes,

before and after school tutoring, small group interventions, research-based differentiated

strategies in the regular classroom, and RTI are some of the alternative practices to retention and

social promotion that have proven track records of success that need to be utilized to meet all of

the needs of the various students in public schools.

CHAPER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Overview

The purpose of this transcendental phenomenological study was to understand the impact

that retention has had on the lived experiences of adults in the North Georgia area that were

retained in their K-12 education. This chapter highlights the procedures, research design, and

analysis for this study of retention as an intervention for low-performing students. Studying the

impact of retention on adults should add to the research that influences educational policy and

the practices of educators.

Design

This study followed a qualitative transcendental phenomenological design and data

collection consisted of surveys, questionnaires, interviews, and a focus group. A qualitative

approach was best suited to the research as it sought to study and gain a deep understanding of

the practice of retention as experienced by people that have lived through it. Phenomenology is

the study of the common meaning of lived experiences of several individuals(Creswell, 2013).

Unless a person has personally lived through an experience like retention, it is hard to truly gain

an understanding of this life event by observing it as an outsider. Phenomenology allowed me to

gain an understanding of retention as if I were living vicariously through the participants. Data

collected was used to create a snapshot of the experience of retention that was central to all

participants of the study (Creswell, 2013). Data was collected that focuses on what each

participant experienced and how it impacted their lives through the many years since the

phenomenon occurred (Moustakas, 1994). Analysis of the data sought to uncover some shared

meanings and themes. Transcendental phenomenology means that the experience was explored

with fresh eyes as if seeing the phenomenon for the first time through the lived experiences of

the participants (Moustakas, 1994). This approach involved leaving behind the researcher’s

experiences with the phenomenon and really trying to look at the incident through the eyes of the

ones that experienced retention first hand. Textural (what participants experienced) and

structural (how they experienced it) descriptions were developed that allowed the researcher to

truly get to the essence of the experience (Creswell, 2013). My experience with retention has

strictly been from the standpoint of an educator trying to decide what avenue is best for low-

performing students. The transcendental phenomenological design was appropriate for this study

because it allowed me to take a fresh look at retention as if walking in the footsteps of the

participants as they recalled their memories and feelings about this phenomenon. This design

provided an insight into how retention made them feel about school, themselves, and their

surroundings. It also helped the researcher and the reader to understand how retention directed

the path of their lives.

Research Questions

The research questions for this study were:

• How is the experience of grade retention remembered by adults retained in their

K-12 education?

• How has K-12 retention impacted self-efficacy, the belief in the ability to

succeed, and quality of life of adults who were retained during their K-12

education?

o How has retention impacted their self-esteem?

o How has retention impacted their employment successes and

socioeconomic status?

o How has retention impacted their home life and relationships?

Participants

The participants for this study were 10 adults over the age of 18 that experienced the

phenomenon of retention in their K-12 education. Criterion sampling, a type of purposive

sampling, and snowball sampling were utilized in this study to find the participants. Creswell

(2013) refers to criterion sampling as sampling where all participants have to meet the criteria of

having experienced the phenomenon. Finding adults that were retained in their K-12 education

was not a simple task, so snowball sampling was employed in the study as well. Snowball

sampling utilizes participants that have been identified as experiencing the phenomenon to help

find others that have also experienced the phenomenon (Creswell, 2013). For this study, once

participants were identified through criterion sampling, participants were asked to refer other

adults that they may know that have also experienced retention. The 10 participants of this study

were white and between the ages of 33 and 81. Four of the participants were female and six

were male. Four of the participants were retained in the state of Georgia and six participants

were retained in various other states. Eight of the participants were retained in elementary

school, one was retained in middle school, and one was retained in high school.

Site

In an effort to preserve anonymity, all personal and institutional names and locations are

pseudonyms. The site for this study was all public schools in Mountain Town, a rural

community in North Georgia. Mountain Town is located in a county that is about sixty miles

north of Atlanta, Georgia, and has an approximate population of 25,000. Mountain Town is not

racially diverse as approximately 92% of the population is white. These sites were used to survey

adults and find 10 participants for my study.

Procedures

The first step taken in completing the research part of this study was to obtain

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Once this was obtained, a purposive sampling was

administered to adults at the five public schools in the county. The researcher sent enough

surveys through interoffice mail for all employees of each of the five schools. Once the surveys

were completed, the four schools that participated had a central location for surveys to be turned

in and a designated person that packed them up and sent them back to the researcher through

interoffice mail. Using the answer to survey question number two, “Were you retained (held

back a year) in your K-12 education?” four school employees were chosen for the study. Six

employees of the school system that were not retained, but completed the survey, told me about

their husbands, one mother, and one friend that were retained in their K-12 education and asked

them if they would be willing to participate in the study. This type of sampling is known as

snowball sampling, which is a method where identified participants think about others they know

that have experienced retention. Next, a questionnaire was given to the chosen participants to fill

out that asked specific questions about their experience with retention. Then, recorded

interviews were conducted with each participant and a focus group of four of the participants

was formed to gather even more data. The researcher gave each participant a twenty-dollar Wal-

Mart gift card as a thank you gift for their participation and willingness to open up about their

experience with retention. After all data was collected, the data analysis strategy entitled

Moustakas’ Seven Steps (Moustakas, 1994) was used to analyze data by finding shared

experiences, meanings, themes, and significant statements.

The Researcher's Role

My name is Betsy Green and I am an assistant principal at an elementary school in

Mountain Town, Georgia. Before I had this job, I was a middle school assistant principal for one

year and a math teacher for nine years. Before that, I stayed at home with my children for fifteen

years. I come from an education background, as both of my parents were educators in public

schools. I possess a Christian worldview and truly strive to help all the different students that I

serve. I have been a part of several retention decisions at the schools where I have been

employed and have taught five students that were retained at the middle school level. I was not

satisfied with the long-term results of these retentions and I wanted more information relative to

such decisions.

I have a working relationship with four of the participants. Three of the four participants

taught at the middle school where I taught and was assistant principal for one year, and one

participant is the counselor at the high school where both of my children attended. Three of the

participants are husbands of teachers that teach at the elementary school where I am currently the

assistant principal and one participant is the husband of a teacher at the middle school. One

participant is the mother of a teacher at the elementary school where I work, and one participant

is a friend of a teacher that works at my elementary school. I stressed to all the participants that

participation in this study was voluntary and that no grudges would be held if they decided not to

participate. I also stressed to them that I would not judge them or their circumstances, only

collecting data that I hope will help educators make the best possible decisions for students that

are not meeting success.

Data Collection

To achieve triangulation in this study, data was collected in three different ways, a data

collection method that strengthens the credibility of the data and the study itself (Moustakas,

1994). Questionnaires, interviews, and a focus group meeting were used to gather data. A fourth

data collection method, surveys, was used for the sole purpose of identifying the participants for

the study. Before any of the data collection strategies were administered, a pilot group

composed of colleagues that were not a part of the study, was assembled to examine the wording

and question quality of the survey, questionnaire, interview questions, and focus group questions.

I asked eight educators that work as my equals to read over the instruments and give feedback

that would strengthen the data collected in this study. Five colleagues examined all data

collection instruments and made minor suggestions to improve their quality. Surveys were given

to approximately 350 different adults over the age of 18 as the tool for purposive, criterion

sampling. Criterion sampling makes sense when the goal is to have all participants in the study

meet a predetermined criterion (Patton, 2010). From those surveys, 4 participants were chosen

and the other six participants were found using snowball sampling. Snowball sampling utilizes

participants that have been identified as experiencing the phenomenon to help find others that

have also experienced the phenomenon (Creswell, 2013). A questionnaire made up of closed,

short answer questions was given to each person that asked more detailed questions about their

experience with retention. This allowed me to acquire the less detailed information in a quick

and easy way so interviews could be kept to a reasonable length. Next, individual interviews

were conducted with the identified participants to understand the feelings and emotions that

retention evoked for each participant. From the original 10 participants, a focus group of four

were chosen for the purpose of sharing their stories and bringing to mind events and feelings that

might have been forgotten. I chose my four focus group members by willingness to participate

and the group was comprised of participants ranging from 33 to 54 years of age.

Surveys

In qualitative research, surveys are often used as a criterion sampling method (Creswell,

2013). Surveys are questionnaires used to qualify survey takers as experiencers of the

phenomenon or not, with closed-ended questions encouraging a short or one-word answer. The

qualifying survey was given to approximately 350 adults over the age of 18 at all public schools

in the county. This survey served as the purposive sampling tool to identify 10 participants for

the study that were retained in their K-12 education. I created this survey with eight questions

about retention in K-12 education and other demographic information that helped to narrow

down the individuals surveyed to find the participants (see Appendix A). Maximum variation

sampling at the site level is sampling that tries to find participants that might have different

outcomes as a result of the phenomenon (Creswell, 2013). Certified educators that were

retained, and custodians, lunchroom workers, bus drivers who were retained will likely offer

different outcomes to the phenomenon of retention. This is desirable for my research as I am

trying to find participants that share common themes, but also find participants that have

different experiences based on their life situations. The survey was given to all employees of the

Mountain Town School System including teachers, office workers, bus drivers, custodians,

lunchroom workers, and paraprofessionals. In early spring of 2015, all administrators of all the

schools in the Mountain Town School District were given enough surveys for all of their staff at

their school and were asked to give these out to all employees. Employees filled them out and

returned them to the front office where the secretary collected them. Once most of them were

returned, the secretary sent these to me through interoffice mail.

Questionnaires

Once surveys were analyzed and participants were selected, questionnaires were given to

each of them to answer questions of a more closed nature (See Appendix B). A questionnaire is

a list of closed-ended questions that offers no room for elaboration (Gill, Stewart, Treasure, &

Chadwick, 2008). This type of data collection enabled me to get more information from each of

the participants and allowed me to shorten the interviews to a length that was manageable for

both the interviewer and interviewee. The questionnaires were sent via email to all participants

with an emphasized completion date. Participants were asked to send the answers by email back

to me. Two participants were not email users, so I personally delivered the questionnaire to the

participants and the participants completed the questionnaires and sent them back to me through

people that worked at my school.

Personal Interviews

Personal interviews were conducted in a setting that was comfortable for the participants.

Each participant was asked when and where he or she wanted to meet. All but three of the

interviews were conducted at one of the public schools. Two interviews were conducted at

Starbucks and one interview was conducted at the home of one of the participants. I scheduled

the interviews a week in advance and called each participant to remind them on the day of the

interview. Interviews were face-to-face conversations with the purpose of exploring issues or

topics in detail (Pope & Mays, 1995). Semi-structured interviews are interviews where the

researcher has prepared some guiding questions to add some organization to the interview, but

has left room for improvising and going down paths that naturally come along with

conversations (Myers & Newman, 2007). The interviews were semi-structured so that the

questions guided the participants to help answer the research questions, but allowed them some

room to add their personal meanings to the interview questions that were open-ended (See

Appendix C). Smith, Flowers, and Larkin (2009) suggests semi-structured interviews for first-

time researchers as true open-ended interviews have the tendency to get off track and an

inexperienced researcher might possibly have a hard time getting the participants to focus and

finish the interview. Interviews were recorded using an audio program called Garage Band,

which is already installed on my computer. I used the voice memo application for i Phones as

the back up recording device. I also took notes during the interviews.

Data Collected from Questionnaire and Interviews

Questions two through 11 on the questionnaire and questions one through nine of the

interview helped me to answer research question number one which states: How is the

experience of grade retention remembered by adults retained in their K-12 education? These

questions were asked to get the adult participants to think back and remember why the retention

occurred, how the process of retention worked for them, how they found out they would be

retained, how other people treated them after the retention, and if the retention was beneficial to

them now that they are older and are looking back at this experience. Questions six, seven, and

eight of the questionnaire helped me to get a feel for the type of family in which the participant

was raised and for the possible expectations of the parents. Questions five, six, and 10 of the

interview helped me to answer research question 2a, which states: How has retention impacted

their self-esteem? Question nine, 10, 12, and 13 of the questionnaire, and question 11 of the

interview helped me to answer research question 2b, which states: How has retention impacted

their employment successes and socioeconomic status? These questions asked the participants

about their graduation status, employment history, and whether they feel that retention impacted

their job successes and earning potential. Question 12 of the interview helped answer research

question 2c, which states: How did retention impact the home life and relationships of adults

that were retained in their K-12 education? Question 13 of the interview addressed whether the

participant’s own children were or might be retained and how they felt or would feel about that.

This question delved deeply into how they really feel about the practice of retention and whether

they would want their own children to experience this phenomenon if they were not finding

success in school.

Focus Group

Focus groups are defined as carefully planned discussions that seek to obtain the

perceptions of a particular area of interest in a comfortable, nonthreatening environment

(Krueger & Casey, 2009). Four participants were chosen for a focus group discussion (Appendix

D) based on their willingness. Preferably, the group will be comprised of members from

different age groups. The focus group was held at Mountain Town Middle School in one of the

participant’s classrooms. Three of the members of the focus group were teachers at the middle

school and one was a youth pastor at a local church about two miles from the middle school.

The goal of the focus group discussion was to bring together people that have experienced

retention and to let their cooperative discussion jog their memories in a different way than one-

on-one interviewing could achieve (Krueger & Casey, 2009). Creswell (2013) points out that

focus group meetings need to be facilitated in such a way that all participants contribute and no

one individual dominates the conversation. I led the focus group discussion while recording it so

that I did not miss any important information. This helped with data analysis, specifically with

coding and themes. Focus group meetings were recorded using an audio program called Garage

Band, which is already installed on my computer. I used the voice memo application for i

Phones as the back up recording device, and I also took notes during the focus group meeting.

Data Analysis

Moustakas’ Seven Steps (Moustakas, 1994) were used to analyze the data generated by

this study. Moustakas’ Seven Steps include: Reviewing each statement for how accurately it

describes the experience, recording all pertinent statements, removing all statements that are

repetitive, organizing the constant meaning units into themes, combining the themes into

explanations of the textures of the experience and supplementing the explanations with quotes

from the text, using intuition and utilizing multiple perspectives to find the possible meanings in

the content, and creating descriptions of the what and the how of the experience (Moustakas,

1994).

The “what” and “how” of the experience are the textural and structural descriptions.

The researcher develops a textural description of the experiences of the persons (what

participants experienced), a structural description of their experiences (how they

experienced it in terms of the conditions, situations, or context), and a combination of the

textural and structural descriptions to convey an overall essence of the experience.

(Creswell, 2013, p. 80)

These steps were utilized to code the data from the different collection methods

employed by this study. Coding is a process of identifying common themes and phrases.

Coding and categorizing can be used interchangeably and “involves aggregating the text or

visual data into small categories of information, seeking evidence for the code from different

databases being used in a study, and then assigning a label to the code” (Creswell, 2013, p. 184).

Creswell (2013) refers to coding as a winnowing process for data.

Trustworthiness

Creswell (2013) refers to trustworthiness of a study as validation. He goes on to define

validation as strategies that researchers use to make sure their study is accurate. The four aspects

of trustworthiness are confirmability, credibility, dependability, and transferability.

Confirmability.

Confirmability is the degree to which a research study is authentic to the experiences of

the participants and not the bias of the researcher (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). “Steps must be taken

to help ensure as far as possible that the work’s findings are the result of the experiences and

ideas of the informants, rather than the characteristics and preferences of the researcher”

(Shenton, 2004, p. 72). Confirmability can be achieved through triangulation, use of direct

quotes, researcher’s admission of beliefs and experiences about the phenomenon being studied,

and an audit trail (Shenton, 2004). Triangulation involves using at least three data collection

methods to corroborate evidence to shed light on the phenomenon under study (Creswell, 2013).

In this study a questionnaire, individual interviews, and a focus group discussion were the data

collection methods used to achieve triangulation. An audit trail is a “data-oriented approach,

showing how the data eventually leading to the formation of recommendations was gathered and

processed during the course of the study” (Shenton, 2004, p. 72). In this study, I provide a

detailed description of each participant, an in-depth write up of each personal interview and the

focus group discussion with many direct quotes.

Credibility

Credibility is the accuracy of findings in a study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It is the degree

to which the researcher interpreted the phenomenon accurately (Shenton, 2004). Credibility can

be achieved in a qualitative study through triangulation, member checking, and thick

descriptions. Member checking “involves taking data, analyses, interpretations, and conclusions

back to the participants so that they can judge the accuracy and credibility of the account”

(Creswell, 2013, p. 252). This allows the participants to check the findings and their

interpretations for accuracy to help validate the study (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). “Thick

description means that the researcher provides details when describing a case or when writing

about a theme” (Creswell, 2013, p. 252). After each personal interview and the focus group

discussion, I typed up the transcript and emailed it to each of the participants to check for

accuracy and I encouraged them to change or add to the description as they felt it necessary. I

also used detail and direct quotes to achieve thick descriptions in the transcripts.

Dependability

Dependability is expressing the findings of a study in a consistent manner where

repetition is possible (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). “In order to address the dependability issue more

directly, the processes within the study should be reported in detail, thereby enabling a future

researcher to repeat the work, if not necessarily to gain the same results” (Shenton, 2004, p. 71).

Dependability can be achieved through describing in detail the research design and the data

collection methods.

Transferability

Transferability is the degree to which the findings of a study can be applied to another

study with a wider population, or different context or setting (Shenton, 2004; Trochim, 2006).

Thick descriptions of the boundaries of the study need to be given to the reader, such as detailed

description of the participants, description of the data collection sessions, and the time period

during which the data was collected (Shenton, 2004). Thick descriptions “aim to give readers a

sense of emotions, thoughts, and perceptions that research participant’s experience” (Holloway,

1997, p. 154). In this study thick descriptions of the participants and what was said and

expressed in the data collection sessions were utilized as well as a description of the limitations

of the study.

Ethical Considerations

Obtaining IRB approval and getting informed consent were the first ethical considerations of this

research study. The informed consent was a written description of the purpose of the study, the

voluntary nature of the study, the time commitment involved, the intended use of results, the

right of participants to withdraw from the study at any time, and the confidentiality of all

information gathered through data collection methods, (Creswell, 2013). Protecting the privacy

of my participants was of utmost importance to me, as I felt obligated to that end as they gave me

personal information that was of a sensitive nature. It was also important for me to keep all of

my data confidential by securing the computer that I used and locking the filing cabinet where all

of the non-computerized data was kept. Using pseudonyms for the participants was another

important ethical consideration to ensure that anonymity of participants was preserved.

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

Overview

The first three chapters of this dissertation provide an introduction to the purpose of the

research, a review of the literature, and the methodology used. Chapter four provides an in-depth

inquiry of the findings obtained from the 10 participants of this study about the impact retention

has had on their lives. Each participant completed a survey, questionnaire, and one-on-one

interviews with me and was given a pseudonym to protect their identity. Four of the participants

also participated in a focus group discussion. This chapter will include an overview of

participants, a brief biography of each participant, a detailed account of each participant’s

retention story, and a summary of the findings. The purpose of this transcendental

phenomenological study is to understand the impact that retention has had on the lived

experiences of adults in the North Georgia area that were retained in their K-12 education. The

research questions that guided this study were:

• How is the experience of grade retention remembered by adults retained in their K-12

education?

• How has K-12 retention impacted self-efficacy, the belief in the ability to succeed, and

quality of life of adults who were retained during their K-12 education?

o How did retention impact their self-esteem?

o How did retention impact their employment successes and socioeconomic status?

o How did retention impact their home life and relationships?

Participants

The sample of 10 participants used is this study was found by giving a brief survey

(Appendix A) to most employees of the Mountain Town School District. There are three

elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school in the district with approximately

500 employees. One elementary school never responded to my inquiry to survey their

employees. The 350 employees surveyed included teachers, administrators, counselors,

custodians, paraprofessionals, and lunchroom workers. Out of this group, there were only four

school employees that filled out the survey indicating that they had been retained. Three of those

were teachers and one was a counselor. The snowball effect was employed, as teachers would

tell me that their relative or someone they know was retained. Four of the participants were

husbands of teachers, one was a mother of a teacher, and one was a retired teacher who was

friends with a current teacher.

Table 1

Overview of Participants

Pseudo-

nym

Current

Age

Young

for

Grade

SPED

Services

Traumatic

Experience

as a Child

Mother

Graduated

From HS

Father

Graduated

From HS

Police

Record

Highest

Level of

Alex

66 Yes No No Yes Yes No Masters

Cathy

42 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Doctorate

Charlie

33 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Bachelors

Doug

46 Yes No No No Yes No Associates

Donna

54 No No Yes Yes Yes No Bachelors

George

39 No No Yes No No Yes Bachelors

Jason

37 No No No Yes Yes No High

School

Jack

64 Yes Yes Yes No No No GED

Jane

81 No No No Yes Yes No High

School

Sally

59 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Masters

Four of the 10 participants were female and six were male. All participants were white

and between the ages of 33 and 81. Four of the participants were retained in the state of Georgia

and six participants were retained in various other states. Eight of the participants were retained

in elementary school, one was retained in middle school, and one was retained in high school.

Six of the 10 participants were young for their grade, three received special education services,

and four suffered from a traumatic experience as a child. Seven of the 10 participants had a

mother that graduated from high school, eight had a father that graduated from high school, two

participants have a police record, and seven of the participants have a college degree. Only one

of the 10 participants dropped out of high school.

Alex:

Description.

Alex is a 66-year-old white male who began school at the age of four. He was retained in

the 7

grade at the age of 12, and he did not receive special education services. Alex was raised

by both of his parents and has two siblings, neither of which was retained. His father holds a

master’s degree and his mother graduated from high school. Alex does not know the income

level of his family when he was growing up, but they lived a comfortable life. Alex did graduate

from high school and college and holds a master’s degree in counseling. He does not have a

police record, is currently employed as a counselor at Mountain Town High School and has a

personal income level between $60,000 and $80,000.

Thoughts on why retained.

Alex feels that he was retained because he was young for his grade, small in stature,

struggled in math, and spent long hours every night completing his homework. He stated:

“The way they explained it to me was they felt I was too young to go high school and I

had struggled a bit with math and made a C in math, and they said ‘That’s it. We are

holding you back. You’ll be more mature and maybe you won’t struggle so much’ ”

(Personal communication with participant, May 7, 2015).

When Alex was in school, 8

grade was the first year of high school, and his parents didn’t feel

he was ready for the expectations of high school. When Alex was in the 4

or 6

grade, he

missed a lot of school due to having the measles, and he feels this could have contributed to the

gaps in his knowledge. “I don’t feel that I was immature acting. In fact I know, or I’m pretty

sure, I was not, but I did struggle, particularly with the math. I was also small” (Personal

communication with participant, May 7, 2015). Alex does not feel that he suffered from any big

traumatic experience as a child, but he said that his dad was really hard on him and this made

Alex shut down. “Dad was very hard on me, very hard, to the point I know I shut down, and it

had to do with math. I couldn’t get it and I remember being yelled at and I remember being

called dumb” (Personal communication with participant, May 7, 2015). This made Alex hate

math even more. Alex’s dad graduated from law school and designed houses, so he was very

smart and good at math. He didn’t understand why Alex struggled so. Alex was tested for the

gifted program his first year in 7

grade and qualified in science. But, he never entered a gifted

class due to a conflict with the sports schedule.

Memories of retention experience.

Alex’s parents told him that he was being retained after the final report card of the 7

grade came out. Alex said, “I was shocked, disappointed, and bewildered. I played baseball with

kids that were moving on and this was embarrassing.” On the first day of school of the retained

year, Alex suffered from more embarrassment as the teacher explained in front of the whole class

that Alex’s parents did a wise thing when they retained Alex. He did start to grow physically

during his second 7

grade year and got recruited for an elite rec football team. Due to his

athletic ability, the boys that were a year ahead and the boys that were in his new 7th grade class

accepted him, but the girls in either grade never accepted him. Even though the boys accepted

him in his new class, he still felt like an outsider. He did make a best friend that retained year,

but the friend attended another school. They met due to sports and church.

Thoughts regarding retention, self-esteem, and quality of life.

Alex does not feel that the retention was beneficial to his education because he feels the

social problems he suffered outweighed everything else. “I did feel like an outsider socially for

the rest of my school years. Even when I started dating a girl from the older class, the couples in

that class didn’t invite us to go out with them” (Personal communication with participant, May 7,

2015). He feels like the better solution would have been to move him on with his original class

because he was too old for the retention. Looking back, Alex feels that the retention did affect

his self-esteem negatively for two or three years after the retention until he got an older

girlfriend. Alex did graduate from high school and attended college in Tennessee. He played

baseball in college on a scholarship and doesn’t feel the retention affected him negatively in his

life after high school. Alex graduated from college with a degree in English education on a

Friday and began teaching the following Monday. Alex taught English and history for 20 years

as well as coached football. He earned a counseling degree in the mid 1980s and started working

as a school counselor in 1993.

Thoughts regarding retaining his own children.

Alex has two children of his own and neither one was retained. Alex said that he would

have entertained the idea of retention for them if they had needed it in their early school careers,

not in middle school.

Cathy:

Description.

Cathy is a 42-year-old white female who began school at the age of five. She was

retained in kindergarten at the age of six and did receive speech services. Cathy was an only

child, and her parents divorced when she was two. She lived with her mother, but did visit her

father every other weekend. Both of her parents graduated from high school. Cathy thinks the

income level of her family during her growing up years was in the range of $20,000 to $40,000.

She doesn’t remember being poor, but they also did not have a lot of extra. Cathy did graduate

from high school and college and holds a doctorate degree in education. Cathy does not have a

police record, is currently employed as a science teacher at Mountain Town Middle School, and

has a personal income level over $100,000.

Thoughts on why retained.

“From what I’ve been told, my mother and the kindergarten teacher met and they

decided that I loved school but I was not ready to move on to 1

grade. They were

worried that if I went on to 1

grade, I would struggle and not enjoy school” (Personal

communication, May 5, 2015).

Cathy says she experienced difficulty in kindergarten due to slow processing speed and low

reading ability. She did receive speech services when she was in elementary school. Cathy’s

parents divorced when she was two years old, but she does not think that was traumatic to her

because she never remembers her parents together, her parents never fought, and Cathy had a

great relationship with both of her parents. She lived with her mom, but visited her dad every

other weekend.

“I was pretty much a latchkey kid. My mom worked two jobs and she smoked and drank

and I chose a different lifestyle as I got older. Nothing that set me back, just that my

mom worked a lot. I don’t remember her reading books to me and going over ABC flash

cards, but she did read a lot and my love for reading is because she actually got me into

book clubs when I was younger” (Personal communication with participant, May 5,

2015).

When I asked Cathy if she felt these situations had an impact on her retention she said,

“I really don’t. I say that because I had a speech therapist. I also remember being in

elementary school later on or it may have been middle school where they asked me to do

summer school to get caught up on reading. I remember my spelling was always awful

and now that I’m an educator, I look back and my dad can barely read, so I think there is

some learning disabilities and one of my kids has maybe a little bit, but we have all

overcome them so I think I might have actually had something just never diagnosed and I

compensated and I think my daughter has done the same thing” (Personal communication

with participant, May 5, 2015).

Memories of retention experience.

Cathy found out she was being retained by her mom. She remembers being excited

because her best friend was a year younger than her and they would get to be in the same grade

together. Her kindergarten teacher made her the class helper her second year of kindergarten and

she never felt like she did kindergarten twice. Cathy does not remember the other kids acting

differently towards her and she thinks this is probably because they were all so young and didn’t

realize that she was repeating kindergarten. The retention did cause her parents to help her more

with reading and ABCs. Her mother signed her up for a book club and she got two books a

month as well as Highlights magazine and she remembers getting really excited about that.

Cathy does feel that the retention in kindergarten was very beneficial to her education because it

gave her an opportunity to mature and be one of the oldest in the class.

“I think number one, I was older so when I went into high school and my younger peers

were doing stupid stuff, I was like why are you doing that? I was 16 in the ninth grade

and driving my friends around so it was really good for me” (Personal communication

with participant, May 5, 2015).

Cathy does not feel there was a better solution than retention at the time because she was so

young and the retention was seamless for her.

Thoughts regarding retention, self-esteem, and quality of life.

Cathy feels that the retention was good for her self-esteem all through her growing up

years because she was older and more mature. When she was in middle school, she remembers

not being chosen to take honor classes and that hurt her feelings, but in the 8

grade she was

asked to take Algebra 1 with the gifted students and that was really good for her self-esteem.

Cathy started working at the age of 14 and paid most of her own expenses. She did graduate

from high school and college and presently holds a doctorate degree in education. She does tell

her students about her retention and her struggles in school because she wants them to relate to

her and realize that they can overcome obstacles and be successful.

Thoughts regarding retention of her own children.

Cathy does have two daughters of her own. She did think about retention for the younger

one, but on the advice of her teachers, she did not hold her back and this ended up being the right

decision because her daughter has caught up in reading and writing. Cathy does feel that if a

student is going to be held back, it should happen in kindergarten or first grade before

friendships form and self-esteem is affected.

Charlie:

Description.

Charlie is a 33-year-old white male who began school at the age of five. He was retained

in the 3

grade at the age of eight and did receive special education services in reading. Charlie

was raised by both of his parents and had two older siblings, neither of which was retained. Both

of his parents graduated from high school and his mother received her bachelor’s degree in

education when Charlie was in the 3

grade. Charlie reported that his family income was

between $20,000 and $40,000 during his growing up years. Charlie did graduate from high

school and college, but does have a police record “for doing something really stupid in high

school.” Charlie is currently employed as the youth pastor of a Methodist church in Mountain

Town and has a personal income level between $40,000 and $60,000.

Thoughts on why retained.

Charlie was retained in the 3

grade because he was young for his age and struggled with

schoolwork. “I got behind and stayed behind. I was one of the youngest in the class with a June

30 birthday.” He said that his end of year report card was the data used to decide to hold him

back in 3

grade and that his mother told him of the decision.

Memories of retention experience.

Charlie said that he was relieved because the friends he had made in the current grade

were leaving him out and making him feel like they didn’t really like him and that he was getting

on their nerves. The new friends he made when he repeated 3

grade fully accepted him. He

said:

“Dusty and Clint became my buddies and this made me happy and content in my retained

year. I had a young vibrant teacher my second year of 3

grade and I loved that. There

was a restroom attached to our classroom and the teacher said we could go to restroom

when she was not teaching. This made me feel responsible and I thought the teacher was

very cool” (Personal communication with participant, May 6, 2015).

The retention did not cause Charlie any problems at home and made him a happier person.

Charlie was the baby of the family as his two older siblings are 7 and 9 years older than him. His

siblings were not retained in school, but his brother did have to repeat a few classes in high

school. Charlie feels that his brother could have benefited from retention early in his school

career.

Thoughts regarding retention, self-esteem, and quality of life.

Charlie feels that the retention was beneficial to his education.

“Being able to be accepted by friends and successful with education and making good

grades boosted my self-esteem and made me like school. I feel that the second year in 3

grade allowed me to have another year to then thrive in school rather than struggle at the

bottom of the pack” (Personal communication with participant, May 6, 2015).

He said that after his retention year, he stayed ahead of everything and school was not a problem

for him. He recalls a time in the 4

grade where he was asked to do a speech about a topic of

choice and he chose to do his about the plane his grandfather flew in World War II. He

remembers enjoying the research and giving the speech and feels that school had become

enjoyable for him. Charlie did graduate from high school and college. He received a baseball

scholarship to college and this changed the course of his future plans. He had planned to go into

the military after high school, but ended up going to Lee University in Tennessee and graduated

with a degree in ministry. He was also a graduate assistant baseball coach at Lee University.

“I tried to double major in ministry and history education and was within nine hours of

doing this when I got offered a job in Marietta, Georgia, working part time as leader of

FCA and part time as youth minister in a big Methodist church” (Personal

communication with participant, May 6, 2015).

This is where he met his wife and nine months later they were engaged.

Thoughts regarding retention of his own children

Charlie has one daughter who is not school-aged yet, but he said if she struggled and

needed retaining that he would do it when she was very young. From his experience he feels that

friends are an important part of being happy in school.

“The majority of what we talked about today with my retention was about friends and if

friends are that important in 3

grade, then that makes it that much more important in

middle school. So, for that reason plus others, I would want to hold a child of mine back

as early as possible” (Personal communication with participant, May 6, 2015).

Doug:

Description.

Doug is a 46-year-old white male who began school at the age of four. He was retained

in the 3

grade at the age of eight and he did not receive special education services. Doug was

raised by both of his parents and has two siblings, neither of which was retained. His father

holds an associate’s degree and his mother dropped out of high school at the age of 16. He

reported that his family income was between $20,000 and $40,000 during his growing up years.

Doug did graduate from high school and college and holds a degree in respiratory therapy. He

does not have a police record, is currently employed as a respiratory therapist by the local

hospital in Mountain Town, and has a personal income level between $40,000 and $60,0000.

Thoughts on why retained.

The decision to retain Doug was made in a parent/teacher conference where Doug was

present. Doug was retained because he lagged behind in reading. “Everything else was where it

needed to be” (Personal communication with participant, May 11, 2015).

Memories of retention experience.

Doug was raised by both of his parents and did not experience any traumatic experiences

as a child. Doug was not bothered by the decision to retain him because he was going to have

the same teacher as he did the year before and he really liked this teacher. “I liked my teacher so

that made it easier. On the first day of the retained year I remember feeling they weren’t the

same kids I was used to being with, but that’s all I can recall” (Personal communication with

participant, May 11, 2015). Doug does not remember experiencing embarrassment on the first

day of the retained year because his school was a primary school and his former classmates

moved on to another school. His new classmates didn’t realize that he was retained, so the

situation was an easy one. Doug does feel the retention was beneficial to his education because

it gave him the opportunity to develop reading skills. Doug felt that the only better solution to

being retained in the 3

grade would have been to be retained earlier.

“I do remember my mom having a conference with my kindergarten teacher and saying

she didn’t realize she could have kept me home for another year. I was four when I

started kindergarten. But, the kindergarten teacher advised my mom to keep me where I

was because I was excelling and doing well” (Personal communication with participant,

May 11, 2015).

Doug did say that his mother was very involved in his education and that helped him to be

successful.

Thoughts regarding retention, self-esteem, and quality of life.

Doug does not remember the retention having an impact on his self-esteem either

negatively or positively. He said that he is still not a great reader because he doesn’t read fast.

Doug graduated from high school, went straight to college and got a degree in respiratory

therapy. Doug worked in college and did his clinical rotations. When he graduated, he went to

work for the same hospital where he did his rotations and worked there for five years. He and

his family vacationed in Mountain Town, Georgia, and loved it so much they decided to move to

Mountain Town. He has worked at the hospital in Mountain Town for 20 years now.

Thoughts regarding retaining his own children.

Doug and his wife have a son in the 8

grade. Doug said, “If my son had needed

retaining I would definitely consider it after doing research as to why and after talking to my

wife who is an educator” (Personal communication with participant, May 11, 2015).

Donna:

Description

Donna is a 54-year-old white female who began school at the age of 5. She was retained

in the 2

grade at the age of eight and did not receive special education services. Donna’s

parents got divorced so her mother and grandmother raised her. She has two siblings, but neither

of them was retained. Donna’s father holds a bachelor’s degree and her mother graduated from

high school. She reported that her family income level was below $20,000 during her growing

up years. Donna graduated from high school and college and holds a middle school teaching

degree. She does not have a police record, is currently employed as a science teacher at

Mountain Town Middle School, and has a personal income level of between $60,000 and

$80,000.

Thoughts on why retained.

Donna’s dad was in the military and they lived overseas her first time in the 2

grade.

“We just came back from Okinawa and I started 3

grade in the states and I remember

sitting in class looking at pictures thinking, ‘I wish I knew what the words said so I could

read the stories because all the other kids can’ ” (Personal communication with

participant, May 12, 2015).

When she came to the states, she started school in 3

grade, but her mother insisted that she

repeat the 2

grade. Donna does not remember if the 3

grade teacher was involved in the

decision to retain her, but she does remember that her mom told her when she was older that she

had to fight with the principal to get her retained. Her mother also told her when she was older

that she attributes the fact that Donna could not read in 3

grade to her education in Okinawa

because the teachers were not certified, but Donna does not feel this was the reason. She feels

her immaturity was the reason.

Memories of retention experience.

Donna stated:

“A 2

grade teacher introduced me to a child in her class and asked if I wanted to go to

recess with them. She did this for 2 or 3 days, then said, ‘Why don’t you just come and

play with us all the time.’ The next thing I know, I was back in 2

grade. It was perfect”

(Personal communication with participant, May 12, 2015).

Donna’s dad was in the military and was gone a lot during her younger years.

“My dad was away all the time. He was off fighting a war, but as a kid you did not pay

attention to that. When he came home my parents fought. They finally got divorced and I

didn’t see my dad for years. As a kid you just adjust, but as an adult you think, ‘Oh my

God, what did you do that for’ ” (Personal communication with participant, May 12,

2015)?

Donna does feel that the fighting of her parents and the divorce did play into the need to retain

her.

Thoughts regarding retention, self-esteem, and quality of life.

The retention was no big deal to Donna until she hit middle school. By middle school

Donna had matured a great deal and grown very tall for her age. She said that she felt too old for

grade. Her self-esteem had been high up until this point, but in middle school she began to

suffer from some self-esteem issues. Donna did graduate from high school and college. She

graduated from college with a degree in education and taught 4 or 5 years before she stayed

home with her children. After staying home for a while, she went to work for Valic and was able

to work from her home. But, she grew tired of that job as it was boring and she missed teaching,

so she started teaching again when her children were older. Donna does think the retention was

beneficial to her education because she learned to read in the retained year and developed an

interest in school that she had not had before. She thinks that without the retention, there is a

good possibility that she would not have graduated from high school, and she does not feel there

was a better solution for her learning needs. Donna attributes the success of the retention to her

mother’s involvement and support of her education.

Thoughts regarding retaining her own children.

Donna has three children of her own. She retained her middle son in the 4

grade, but

the retention was not successful.

“He wound up quitting school and getting a GED. I retained him in the 4

grade and I

should have listened to my instincts and retained him when he was in kindergarten. I

thought since we were so supportive and he switched schools that it would work, but he

was just too into what was going on with his peers” (Personal communication with

participant, May 12, 2015).

George:

Description.

George is a 39-year-old white male who began school at the age of six. He was retained

in the 9

grade at the age of 15 and did not receive special education services. George was

raised by both of his parents and has two siblings, neither of which was retained. Both of his

parents dropped out of high school at the age of 16, but both of his parents earned their GED.

His mother went on to complete a nursing degree. George reported that his income level was

between $80,000 and $100,000 during his growing up years. George did graduate from high

school and college and holds a bachelor’s degree in education. George does have a police record

for foolish behavior in high school, is currently employed as a social studies teacher at Mountain

Town Middle School, and has a personal income level between $40,000 and $60,000.

Thoughts on why retained.

George was retained in the ninth grade because he passed only three out of 12 possible

credits that year. He was suspended for 12 to 16 days due to fighting and skipping school and

missed a total of 39 days of school. He hung out with a group of 7 or 8 boys that lived across the

street from the school and were more motivated to go to the lake all day than go to school. Out

of that group of boys, George was the only one to graduate from high school. “I passed art,

math, and PE that year. It wasn’t that I couldn’t do it, I just chose not to” (Personal

communication with participant, May 7, 2015). George knew he would repeat his 9

grade year

due to his lack of effort and the number of credits he had at the end of the year. He said, “Mama

and I talked about it at the time, but Dad was in Germany” (Personal communication with

participant, May 7, 2015). Both of his parents were disappointed in him, but supportive of his

attitude to catch up and graduate on time.

Memories of retention experience.

George grew up in a military family and his dad was gone often.

“Daddy being away in the army affected a lot. Between the ages of 8 and 18, Daddy was

gone eight of those 10 years. I was the middle child. Mama worked nights, she was a

nurse and us three boys were home alone. My older brother was more apt to do what he

was supposed to do. My younger brother was handicapped so we took care of him. I was

more apt to do what I wanted to do” (Personal communication with participant, May 7,

2015).

Both of George’s parents dropped out of school.

“Neither one of my parents graduated from high school. My mom quit at 16 and my dad

quit at 15 or 16. Mom got pregnant and dad went into the army. Mom had my older

brother at age 16 and had me at 20” (Personal communication with participant, May 7,

2015).

Both of his parents did go back and get their GEDs and his mom went back and got a nursing

degree.

Repeating 9

grade again did affect George’s ability to play basketball and for that he

was sorry.

“I was asked to play on the basketball team. The basketball team was pretty good, but I

was not eligible academically until the 2

semester of my junior year. We won state that

year. That summer, I had to go to summer school to play the 1

semester of my senior

year” (Personal communication with participant, May 7, 2015).

George describes himself as a loner and the type to eat lunch all by himself and be perfectly

content with that.

Thoughts regarding retention, self-esteem, and quality of life.

George does not feel that the retention affected his self-esteem in a negative way because

he said he was comfortable with himself. He feels that the retention was beneficial to his

education and to life.

“The lessons that I learned outside of the standards were pretty valuable. Through this

event, I developed the strength needed to go through hard times and grow from it. I don’t

know if I would be the same person today if I had not gone through that” (Personal

communication with participant, May 7, 2015).

George worked from the time he was 14 years old doing everything from waiting tables,

landscaping, digging ditches, bartending, being a bouncer, working at a funeral home to doing

electrical work. The job of digging ditches was a lesson in itself. He said that he enjoys manual

labor and enjoyed working with the people he worked with to dig ditches, but in the Savannah,

Georgia, summer heat, he knew he could do something else. George feels that the retention

affected his job successes and socioeconomic status in a positive way by teaching him how to

overcome adversity, how to set goals, and chip away at the goals to achieve them.

Thoughts regarding retaining his own children.

George has two children of his own that are not of school age yet. He would retain

them if they needed it, but he would prefer to retain them at a younger age rather than an older

age due to the many social issues that arise in the later grades.

Jason:

Description.

Jason is a 37-year-old white male who began school at the age of five. He was retained

in the 2

grade at the age of 8 and did not receive special education services. Jason was raised

by both of his parents and has one sibling who was also retained. His father and mother

graduated from high school and both attended college, but neither of them graduated from

college. Jason reported that his family income level was between $20,000 and $40,000 during

his growing-up years. Jason graduated from high school and does not have a police record.

Jason is currently employed by a gun shop and has a personal income level between $20,000 and

$40,000.

Thoughts on why retained.

Jason was retained in the 2

grade at the age of eight. “I was retained because I was a

slow reader and generally off task because I really didn’t want to go to school” (Personal

communication with participant, June 2, 2015). His teacher and mother met and decided

retention was the best option to help Jason strengthen his reading skills and to catch up in

general. Jason said that when he was in the 1

grade, he had a brand new teacher who was just

learning how to be a teacher and probably was not that strong in her techniques for teaching

students how to read.

Memories of retention experience.

Jason found out he was being retained in the summer after his first 2

grade year.

“During the summer, my parents told me. Oh, I was sad and I was depressed. I thought

it was not fair that all of my friends got to go on and I was stuck back. I didn’t know

anybody. My parents response was, ‘Life’s not fair.’ I got over it pretty quick” (Personal

communication with participant, June 2, 2015).

Half of Jason’s friends that got promoted did not treat him well and the other half did. “Half of

the friends I had would make fun of me. The other half acted normal and still played with me”

(Personal communication with participant, June 2, 2015). He said that his new classmates

probably didn’t realize he was retained. He grew up in Santa Rosa, Florida. The area was really

large and if you moved a mile down the road, there was a good chance that you would go to

another school, so the kids probably just thought he moved in that year. The retention did not

cause Jason any problems at home. His mom was very involved in his education and made sure

he got his homework done right after school before he could play. “If I told her that I didn’t

have homework, she would check my book bag to verify. I could never pull that one over on

her. My mom helped me memorize my multiplication tables and she read with me constantly”

(Personal communication with participant, June 2, 2015). Jason does feel that the retention was

beneficial to his education because the first time he was in 2

grade, he was a poor reader and

only got through about a third of the first box of leveled readers. The other students were

finishing the second box by the end of the year. “This was frustrating to me. My parents worked

with me over the summer the year that I was retained and the second year that I was in the 2

grade, I was an all A student” (Personal communication with participant, June 2, 2015). The

only other option that would have been better in Jason’s opinion would have been for his parents

to hold him back in 1

grade. This would have allowed him not to have to struggle so hard his

first time in 2

grade.

Thoughts regarding retention, self-esteem, and quality of life.

Jason’s self-esteem suffered a little bit after the retention, but he quickly got over it once

he started experiencing success in school. His self-esteem has been high ever since and he really

has not thought about being retained again until his wife asked him if he would participate in my

study. Jason did graduate from high school and went straight to work for 10 years for a

manufacturer of plastic windshields for motorcycles. He joined the National Guard while

working for this company and got deployed for a total of three years over a six-year enlistment

period. After he completed his duty with the National Guard, Jason worked overseas for a

security company for four years. He worked in Iraq and Indonesia. He then took three years off

work when he returned to the states because he couldn’t find a job close to home that he wanted.

In the meantime his daughter was born. He now works in retail for a gun shop.

Thoughts regarding retaining his own children

Jason would allow his daughter to be retained early on if she needed to be. “My

experience with retention was great and my younger brother was retained in kindergarten for

maturity reasons and that was also a good experience. If she was struggling, I would retain her”

(Personal communication with participant, June 2, 2015).

Jack:

Description.

Jack is a 64-year-old white male that began school at the age of 5. He was retained in the

grade at the age of 7 and did receive special education services in reading. Jack was raised

by both of his parents and has two siblings, neither of which was retained. Both of his parents

dropped out of school at the age of 16, and Jack reports that his family income level was below

$20,000 during his growing-up years. Jack dropped out of high school when he was 16 years

old, but did receive his GED when he was 46. Jack does not have a police record, is currently

disabled and not working, and has an income level below $20,000.

Thoughts on why retained.

Jack was retained in the 2

grade due to not being on grade level in reading. He believes

the decision to retain him was made by his teacher and parents. “School held no interest for me.

I had a very dysfunctional family. There was alcoholism in my family and there were lots of

parties and fist fights at my house” (Personal communication with participant, May 9, 2015). A

cousin also sexually molested Jack as a child. “It was hard to concentrate on school” (Personal

communication with participant, May 9, 2015).

Memories of retention experience.

Jack was told his parents were retaining him and he was totally embarrassed about it.

Jack does not remember how he felt on the first day of the retained year, but said, “I was

embarrassed by the retention and the fact that I was big in size for my grade added to the

embarrassment” (Personal communication with participant, May 9, 2015). Jack does not feel

that the retention was beneficial to his education.

Thoughts regarding retention, self-esteem, and quality of life.

“The retention made me feel not smart enough, not good enough. It really messed with

my self-esteem” (Personal communication with participant, May 9, 2015). His father was a

workaholic, and his mother was in charge of his education. “If Mom had worked with me more,

I would have done better” (Personal communication with participant, May 9, 2015). Jack did

have a teacher in the 6

grade named Mr. Smith that was a great teacher and “he woke me up

inside for learning” (Personal communication with participant, May 9, 2015). All through his

school years he felt like he was stupid, but his self-esteem improved as an adult when he went to

work and experienced some successes. Jack dropped out of school at age 16 and was a union

carpenter for many years. When Jack dropped out of school, he did work full time and started

flying airplanes at the age of 16. Jack always wanted to be self-employed and bounced back and

forth from being self-employed to working for someone else. When Jack was 46 years old, he

wanted to get his real estate license, but he needed a high school diploma to do this. So, he went

back to get his GED. “I felt proud, but the test was scored too easily. I couldn’t understand what

I wrote, so how could the graders” (Personal communication with participant, May 9, 2015).

Jack ended his working life as a self-employed builder and retired after health issues became too

much to work.

Thoughts regarding retaining his own children

Jack has one child who is now 44 years old, and she was not retained in school. She did

have problems all throughout school, but Jack would intervene and try to help his daughter at

home. “My daughter was labeled with a learning disability in school and the extra help class

made her feel dumb” (Personal communication with participant, May 9, 2015). Jack has two

grandchildren that are very smart and have had no trouble in school. Jack feels that retention is a

serious issue and the people making the decisions need to look at the whole child, not just the

academic issues.

Jane:

Description.

Jane is an 81-year-old white female who began school at the age of six. She was retained

in the 4

grade at the age of nine and did not receive special education services. Jane was raised

by both of her parents and has two siblings, neither of which was retained. Both of her parents

graduated from high school, but did not attend college. Jane reported that her family income

level was below $20,000 during her growing up years. Jane did graduate from high school and

does not have a police record. Jane is currently retired, but bakes cakes for local restaurants and

grocery stores, and has a personal income level between $20,000 and $40,000.

Thoughts on why retained.

The first time Jane was in 4

grade, she missed a lot of days due to illness. She also felt

that she was slow to catch on at that time and learning her multiplication tables was hard for her.

Her mother and the teacher met to discuss the best educational plan for Jane and decided

repeating 4

grade would be the best plan.

“It was made between my teacher and my mother, most probably. I don’t know if the

dad was included back then or not. It took me a while to catch on. Back then, it was the

multiplication tables in that grade” (Personal communication with participant, April 25,

2015).

Memories of retention experience.

Jane found out that she was being retained after her end of year report card came out by

her mother telling her the plan. She remembers feeling disappointed because she didn’t want all

of her friends to move on the next grade and leave her.

“Of course, I was disappointed. I didn’t want all my friends to leave me. But, I made

friends pretty easy and found some new ones and kept them all through my sophomore

year. Then, we moved after Mother’s death to live with an aunt for a while” (Personal

communication with participant, April 25, 2015).

Jane describes herself at the time as a timid person with not much self-confidence. She

remembers feeling scared on the first day of her retained 4

grade year. Her new classmates

were very kind to her and probably did not know that she was retained. She still remained

friends with some of her old classmates and remembers them being nice to her. Jane feels that

the retention was a good decision and helped her to fill in gaps in her knowledge and gave her

another year to learn her multiplication facts. “Well, it enabled me to go on to bigger and better

things. I knew more and how to do what I had to do. I learned my multiplication tables”

(Personal communication with participant, April 25, 2015).

Thoughts regarding retention, self-esteem, and quality of life.

Looking back, Jane thinks that retention was the best possible solution for her, and the

retention helped her to gain confidence in herself and be successful in school for the rest of her

school career. At the time of her retention, Jane’s life was happy and normal. Her mother was

very involved with Jane’s education and made sure that Jane’s retention was successful. When

Jane was 16 years old her mother died after an extended illness, and she had to help her father

keep their household in order. Jane did graduate from high school, but she did not go to college.

She went straight to work as a bookkeeper at a bank. She worked there several years, got

married, and had her first child. Her husband was a Methodist minister, and they ended up

moving around. She held many jobs during this time period in her life including working in a

doctor’s office, working as a bookkeeper at a radio station, working at a children’s shop, working

as a teller in a bank, and working in a pest control office. When she moved to Mountain Town,

Georgia, her children were grown and she started an in-home day care so that she could watch

her grandchild as well as make money. She did this for many years until her grandchild got

older and then started baking and selling the baked goods to local restaurants and grocery stores.

At 81, Jane is still doing the baking, but has scaled back some.

Thoughts regarding retaining her own children.

Jane has two daughters, four grandchildren, and two great grandchildren, and none of

them were retained. Jane said that if one of her children had needed to be retained, she would

have agreed to let this happen as she feels that retention was beneficial to her educational career

and her working career.

Sally:

Description.

Sally is a 59-year-old white female who began school at the age of six. She was retained

in the 2

grade at the age of 7 and did not receive special education services. Sally was raised

by both of her parents and had two siblings, neither of which was retained. Her father graduated

from high school and graduated from an embalming college. Her mother graduated from high

school and graduated from nursing school. Sally reported that the income level of her family

was below $20,000 when she was growing up. Sally did graduate from high school and college

and holds a master’s degree in education. She does not have a police record, is currently retired

from education, and has a personal income level between $20,000 and $40,000.

Thoughts on why retained

Sally’s mom and teacher conferenced about Sally’s poor grades and made the decision to

retain her. Sally was raised in a military family that moved often. By the time she had

competed the 2

grade, she had attended four different schools. Sally was small in size and

young for her grade as she had a July birthday. All of these reasons made retention seem like a

good idea for Sally’s educational success.

“This was relayed to me later. My mom had a conference with my teacher and what

happens when you go from one school to another school is you miss out and so there

were just gaps due to having so many teachers. So, it was like she needs another year to

catch up on what she missed. I was tiny. I have a July birthdate. I mean, I had so many

indicators that it was what I needed” (Personal communication with participant, May 20,

2015).

Memories of retention.

Sally learned of her retention on the bus ride home after the last day of school.

“I learned of my retention in the cruelest of ways. So we get on the bus and all the kids

have their report cards out, and kids were like, ‘Did you pass?’ and I said, ‘I don’t know’

and this one kid said, ‘Let me see your report card and I’ll tell you.’ Then she said,

‘What grade are you in?’ I said, ‘second’ and she said, ‘You failed’ ” (Personal

communication with participant, May 20, 2015).

I went home and showed my mom my report card and she was so emphatic that I did not fail.

She said, ‘This is not failure, you just need to do it again’ ” (Personal communication with

participant, May 20, 2015). Her mother made the retention a positive experience for Sally and

this made Sally accept the decision in a positive way. When Sally was in the 1

grade, her dad

left for 13 months on an assignment to Korea.

“Dad went to Korea at Christmas of the year I was in first grade and he didn’t come back

until 13 months later after Christmas of second grade. And back then you could not

communicate other than letters and my mom was all alone in Tampa, Florida with four

kids, two in diapers. She didn’t have a support system” (Personal communication with

participant, May 20, 2015).

When I asked Sally if this situation had an impact on her retention, she said, “It could have. We

moved three times while Dad was gone. We moved from Florida to Maryland, then again in

Maryland, then to Texas. When I repeated second grade, that was my fifth teacher since I had

started school” (Personal communication with participant, May 20, 2015). Sally feels that this

experience was somewhat traumatic for her, but she does not feel that the absence of her father

was the only reason she did poorly in school. Sally was retained at her old school, but started the

retained year at her new school in Texas, so classmates were not even aware that Sally had been

retained. She experienced no anxiety from the retention and had a great teacher in her retained

year. This made the retention easy for her and she ended up being very successful during her

retained year. She enjoyed being one of the oldest in the class and being in the higher academic

groups. Sally feels that the retention was beneficial to her education as the retention allowed her

to mature and catch up.

Thoughts regarding retention, self-esteem, and quality of life.

Sally learned to focus and study during this retained year and she feels that her self-

esteem received a boost due to her understanding of the schoolwork and success with the work.

Sally had a successful school career and graduated from both high school and college. She held

down many part time jobs as a college student including waitressing, bartending, and cashier.

She graduated from college with an education degree and held teaching jobs from the time she

graduated until she retired.

Thoughts regarding retaining her own children.

Sally has two children of her own and neither of them was retained. Looking back, she

feels that her youngest daughter could have benefited from being retained as she had an August

birthday and struggled with math because of her lack of maturity.

“I was really up in the air with my youngest daughter because she has an August

birthday. I would ask her teachers if she was ready to move on and they would say,

‘Yes.’ She was smart, but immature. As the years have gone on, the maturity gap has

closed, but looking back, she would have benefited from being retained early on”

(Personal communication with participant, May 20, 2015).

Focus Group

Four participants in my study agreed to be a part of a focus group discussion about

retention. The focus group included the three employees of Mountain Town Middle School and

the local youth pastor at the Methodist church. Donna, Cathy, George, and Charlie all agreed to

be members of the focus group and I used them for convenience’s sake. I interviewed many

people that did not want to participate in a focus group conversation, but these four participants

were willing to share their experiences with retention. All of my focus group participants knew

each other, but did not know that they were retained at some point in their K-12 education. It

was humorous to watch their expressions as the group formed. Donna laughed and made the

comment, “It is nice to be a part of such accomplished losers” (Personal communication with

participant, May 27, 2015). The group reported different reasons for being retained. Donna was

held back in the 2

grade due to immaturity, Cathy was held back in kindergarten due to being a

slow learner, George had to repeat the 9

grade due to adolescent attitude and laziness, and

Charlie had to repeat the 3

grade due to being young for grade and getting behind. When asked

if they liked school before they were retained, Donna said that she did not like it because “They

wouldn’t let me get up and play. Sitting at a desk all day was boring” (Personal communication

with participant, May 27, 2015). Cathy reported that she loved school from the very beginning

and George said that he didn’t mind school. Charlie said that he did not dislike school before the

retention but he became an outcast with his friends and this made school unpleasant for him.

When asked if they liked school after the retention, Donna said that she didn’t like school until

she became successful, which was in high school. Cathy said that she always loved school, and

George said he liked school better after the retention because school became challenging and it

was more exciting for him. Charlie said, “I liked school more after the retention because I had a

new friend group that would accept me” (Personal communication with participant, May 27,

2015). When I asked them to express their feelings of how it felt when they found out they were

being retained, Donna and Cathy both said the transition was so smooth that they don’t

remember being upset about it. Donna moved to a new school, so all classmates and teachers

were different. Cathy said, “My best friend was a year younger than me and I was excited to be

able to be in the same grade with her” (Personal communication with participant, May 27, 2015).

George said he was old enough to see the retention coming, so it was not shocking news. Charlie

said that he was not upset and was actually relieved due to being an outcast among his old peer

group. I asked all of them if they felt their retention could have been avoided and George said,

“Yes. If I had put more effort into my schoolwork and if Dad had been home” (Personal

communication with participant, May 27, 2015). George’s dad was gone 8 years between the

time George was 8 to 18 years of age. Donna said that she thinks retention could have been

avoided with more parental support of her education before the retention, and Cathy said,

“Retention might have been avoided if my mother would have been more supportive of my

education early on in my life by reading to me, but I now know that I was genetically prone to a

learning disability” (Personal communication with participant, May 27, 2015). Charlie said that

he was immature as he has a summer birthday and was one of the youngest in his class. So,

Charlie feels that the only way retention could have been avoided was for his parents to start him

in school a year later than they did.

When I asked them what they learned from their retention that could benefit or has

benefited their own children, Donna said that she would have been a better student if her mother

had made her sit down after school and get her homework done. She did that with her own

children and it did help them be more successful in school. Cathy said that she learned that she

had to have a watchful eye and stay on top of her children’s education from a very young age.

Her youngest has speech issues and dyslexia, but she had them diagnosed early on and got her

the help that she needed. Charlie said that his retention has taught him that he has to

communicate with his children and stay in tune to what is going on in their lives. George said

that the retention taught him the value of setting goals, believing in himself, and how to work

smarter. He hopes to be able to convey these ideas to his own children.

The last question I asked the group was how the whole education system could be

changed to benefit all learners. Three of these participants are teachers at the middle school level

and one is a youth pastor who deals with young people ages 11 to 18. All participants have

worked with adolescents for a minimum of 10 years and each one of them had ideas of how to

make education more meaningful for all learners. All of them felt that social promotion was too

prevalent and that students need to be retained in the very early grades. All felt that there should

be different options for students other than taking the college-bound classes. George said, “We

all have students sitting in our classes that truly need to learn how to balance a checkbook, and

be trained for a trade. They need to be able to go and do” (Personal communication with

participant, May 27, 2015). Donna said, “If my youngest son would have gone to Mountain

Town High School instead of Metropolis High School, he would have graduated because they

have the vocational courses that would have interested him. He needed hands-on learning”

(Personal communication with participant, May 27, 2015). Charlie said,

“My brother was a vocational kid. Pretty quick into high school, my parents figured out

that traditional style education was not going to work for him and so he went head and

shoulders deep into vocational classes and he scraped through to graduate because he still

had to take English 12 twice, but once he was not going to college and out in the real

world, he knew how to do things. He could build a house and he could weld. He had

something to offer” (Personal communication with participant, May 27, 2015).

Other ideas proposed by the group were offering schools based on interests and learning styles.

Another idea that was discussed was that inclusion classes were too inclusive at times. Cathy

said:

“Not all students need to be intermingled. Those that disrupt constantly because they

have a behavior issue that they can’t help need to be in a resource setting. At some point,

you have to say, ‘This is not the right environment because it’s affecting the other 20

something kids in the classroom.’ At what point does the parent say, ‘I don’t want my

child in that class’ ” (Personal communication with participant, May 27, 2015)?

All of the participants agreed with Cathy and felt that the whole inclusion idea had gone too far.

All of them felt that inclusion works for students that know how to control their behavior, but

that the EBD (Emotional Behavior Disorder) students should be removed from regular classes

and put in an environment that is beneficial to their learning and would allow others to learn

better in the regular setting. One last idea that was offered up was giving teachers more planning

time. Donna felt that teachers need more planning time to reach all the diverse learners in their

classrooms. She said, “Teachers have more planning time overseas” (Personal communication

with participant, May 27, 2015).

Results

This study delved into the experience of retention for 10 participants that were retained in

their K-12 education at public schools in several states in the United States. All of the adult

participants now live in Mountain Town, Georgia, a small town in the North Georgia mountains.

The following is a collection of commonalities obtained from the thorough study of the

questionnaires and transcripts of the interviews. Through the in-depth analysis of the

questionnaires and transcripts, the researcher identified common themes and words that describe

the essence of the experience through the eyes of the participants. The four themes were

thoughts of why retained; memory of retention experience; thoughts regarding retention, self-

esteem, and quality of life; and thoughts regarding retaining his/her own children.

Table 2

Codes and Themes

Codes Frequency Themes

Immature

Young

Small

Struggled

Trouble with reading

Dad gone too much

Military family

Lack of effort

Divorce

Moved often

Thoughts on why

retained.

Disappointed

Embarrassed

Mom involved in

education

Liked teacher during

retained year

Memories of retention

experience.

Beneficial

Social issues

Bad for self-esteem

Good for self-esteem

Thoughts on retention,

self-esteem, and quality

of life.

Retain when young 14

Thoughts regarding

retaining his/her own

children.

Theme 1: Thoughts on Why Retained.

Six of the 10 participants were some of the youngest in their grade, and five of them said

that they felt they were retained because they were young for their grade. Alex said, “My

parents told me, ‘You’ll be more mature and maybe you won’t struggle so much’ ” (Personal

communication with participant, May 7, 2015). Cathy said, “I was young and not ready to move

on to 1

grade” (Personal communication with participant, May 5, 2015). Charlie said, “I got

behind and stayed behind. I was one of the youngest in the class with a June 30 birthday”

(Personal communication with participant, May 6, 2015). Doug said, “My mom didn’t realize

she could keep me home for another year when she sent me to kindergarten” (Personal

communication with participant, May 11, 2015). Sally said, “I was young for my grade and I

was a military child that moved a lot. So, there were huge gaps” (Personal communication with

participant, May 20, 2015). Jack was also young for his grade, but he felt that his volatile home

life led to his retention. “School held no interest for me. It was hard to concentrate on school”

(Personal communication with participant, May 9, 2015).

Six of the 10 participants struggled with reading, and two of the six participants, Jack and

Charlie, received special education services in the area of reading. Donna said, “I remember

thinking, ‘I wish I knew what the words said so I could read the stories because all the other kids

can’ ” (Personal communication with participant, May 12, 2015).

Jason said,

“I was a poor reader and only got through about a third of the first box of leveled readers

the first year I was in 2

grade. The other students were finishing the second box by the end of

the year. This was frustrating to me” (Personal communication with participant, June 2, 2015).

Doug said, “I lagged behind in reading” (Personal communication with participant, May 11,

2015).

Three of the participants were from military families and either moved a lot and/or had

fathers that were gone often. Sally said,

“I was a military child that moved a lot. So, there were huge gaps. Dad went to Korea at

Christmas of the year I was in first grade and he didn’t come back until 13 months later

after Christmas of second grade. And back then you could not communicate other than

letters and my mom was all alone in Tampa, Florida with four kids, two in diapers. She

didn’t have a support system” (Personal communication with participant, May 20, 2015).

George said, “Daddy being away in the army affected me a lot. Between the ages of 8 and 18,

Daddy was gone eight of those 10 years” (Personal communication with participant, May 7,

2015).

Donna said,

“Mom felt I couldn’t read in the 2

grade because the teachers in Okinawa were not

certified. My dad was away all the time. He was off fighting a war, but as a kid you did

not pay attention to that” (Personal communication with participant, May 12, 2015).

Theme 2: Memories of Retention Experience.

Eight of the 10 participants said the decision to retain them was made by a combination

of their parents and their teacher. Four of those eight participants specifically said that their

mother and the teacher made the decision. Two participants said that their parents made the

decision. Alex, who was retained in the 7

grade said, “I made a C in math and my parents said,

‘That’s it. We are holding you back’ ” (Personal communication with participant, May 7, 2015).

Donna said that she moved back to the states from Okinawa, Japan, and could not read. “My

mom told me when I was older that she had to fight with the principal to hold me back”

(Personal communication with participant, May 12, 2015).

Six of the 10 participants said that they did not suffer from a traumatic experience as a

child. Three of the four that suffered a traumatic experience said that their fathers were away in

the military for a long time during their childhood. One of the three participants, Jack, had a

volatile home situation. Alcoholism, parties, and fistfights after drunken parties were a frequent

occurrence in his home.

When I asked them how they felt after they found out about the retention, four of the 10

participants remember feeling embarrassed, sad, and disappointed. Jason said, “Oh, I was sad

and I was depressed. I thought it was not fair that all of my friends got to go on and I was stuck

back” (Personal communication with participant, June 2, 2015). Jack said, “I was embarrassed

by the retention and the fact that I was big in size for my grade added to the embarrassment”

((Personal communication with participant, May 9, 2015). Jane said, “Of course, I was

disappointed. I didn’t want all my friends to leave me” (Personal communication with

participant, April 25, 2015). Four of the 10 participants said that the retention really did not

bother them at the time. Sally said, “My mother was ok with it, so I was ok with it” (Personal

communication with participant, May 20, 2015). Doug said, “I don’t remember it really

bothering me. I liked my teacher so that made it easier” (Personal communication with

participant, May 11, 2015). Two of the 10 participants said that they were excited about being

retained. Cathy said, “I wasn’t upset, in fact I was excited, because my best friend was one year

younger than me, so we got to be in the same grade together” (Personal communication with

participant, May 5, 2015). Charlie said, “I was actually relieved because I was the outcast in my

original friend group, and this made me not enjoy going to school” (Personal communication

with participant, May 6, 2015).

When I asked the participants if the retention caused problems at home with parents or

siblings, they all said, “No.” George said that his parents were disappointed in him, but

supportive of his desire to graduate on time. Five of the 10 participants said that the retention

made their parents help with their education more at home. Cathy said, “I remember getting

more help from my parents during the retained year. My mom signed me up for the book of the

month club and I also started receiving Highlights magazine” (Personal communication with

participant, May 5, 2015). Donna said, “My mom was very supportive of my education and this

helped to make my retention so successful” (Personal communication with participant, May 12,

2015). Jason said, “My mother was very involved with my education. She helped me memorize

my multiplication tables and read to me. She made me sit down and do my homework after

school before I could play” (Personal communication with participant, June 2, 2015). Jane said,

100

“My mom stayed on top of my education, especially when I began to struggle” (Personal

communication with participant, April 25, 2015).

Theme 3: Thoughts Regarding Retention, Self-esteem, and Quality of Life.

When I asked the participants if they felt that the retention had been beneficial to their

education, eight of the 10 said yes and two gave an emphatic no. Cathy and Sally both said

the retention caused them to behave more maturely through school. Doug, Donna, and Jason

all said that the retention helped them to be better readers. Charlie said, “The retention

helped me to be accepted by my peers and be more successful with school work” (Personal

communication with participant, May 6, 2015). Jane said, “It enabled me to go on to bigger

and better things. I knew more and how to do what I had to do. I learned my multiplication

tables” (Personal communication with participant, April 25, 2015). George said, “The

lessons I learned outside of the standards were pretty valuable and helped me be successful

all through my life” (Personal communication with participant, May 7, 2015). Alex and Jack

did not feel that the retention was beneficial to their education. Alex was retained in the 7

grade and he said, “The social problems of the retention decision outweighed everything else.

I was too old to be retained. I should have moved on with my regular class and just gotten

extra help for math” (Personal communication with participant, May 7, 2015). Jack was

retained in the 2

grade and said, “The retention made me feel not smart enough, not good

enough. It really messed with my self-esteem” (Personal communication with participant,

May 9, 2015).

When I asked the participants how they felt the retention impacted their self-esteem, five

said the retention boosted their self-esteem, three said it lowered their self esteem, one

participant does not remember, and one participant said he has always had high self-esteem,

101

before and after retention. Cathy said, “The retention built me up because my teacher made

me the helper during my retained year and this made me feel really good” (Personal

communication with participant, May 5, 2015). Charlie said, “It made me be able to be

successful with friends, and with my education” (Personal communication with participant,

May 6, 2015). Donna said, “The transition was so seamless that my self-esteem did not

suffer. In fact, I started reading and that made me feel good” (Personal communication with

participant, May 12, 2015). Donna said her self-esteem did not suffer until middle school.

Jane said that her self-confidence was low even before the retention. She said, “My self-

esteem was higher after the retention because I knew more and I could keep up” (Personal

communication with participant, April 25, 2015). Sally said, “It elevated my self-esteem

because I was very successful the second time in 2

grade and I was in the higher groups”

(Personal communication with participant, May 20, 2015). Alex, Jason, and Jack all felt that

the retention lowered their self-esteem. Alex said, “My self-esteem suffered for the next two

or three years, until I got an older girlfriend” (Personal communication with participant, May

7, 2015).

Jason said,

“The retention dropped my self-esteem for a while, but I got over it. My self-esteem was

high as I got older and I hadn’t thought about the retention again until my wife brought it

up and asked me if I would be a part of your study” (Personal communication with

participant, June 2, 2015).

Jack said, “I always felt like I was stupid. My self-esteem didn’t improve until I became an adult

and went to work and had some successes” (Personal communication with participant, May 9,

2015).

102

When I asked the participants if they felt retention had an impact on their job successes

and socioeconomic status, eight of the 10 said that retention had affected their adult working

lives in a positive way. One said the retention didn’t have an effect on his working life as an

adult negatively or positively, and one said that the whole retention experience had negative

effects on his life. Eight of the 10 participants felt that the knowledge they gained from

being held back and the maturity that followed, helped them to be successful adults and make

a good living. Charlie said, “Retention helped to provide him with a better academic

foundation which enabled him to be successful in college and get a good job” (Personal

communication with participant, May 6, 2015). Doug said, “The retention made me a better

reader and reading is the foundation of learning” (Personal communication with participant,

May 11, 2015). Donna said, “Without the retention, I doubt I would have graduated from

high school” (Personal communication with participant, May 12, 2015). George said,

“Having the goal of graduating with my class helped me to learn to set goals and how to

achieve the goals by chipping away at them” (Personal communication with participant, May

7, 2015). Jack felt that retention has not served him well in his adult life. He said, “If I

would have graduated from high school, I would have been more successful” (Personal

communication with participant, May 9, 2015). Jack did have some job successes as an

adult, but the thoughts of retention still haunt him.

Theme 4: Thoughts on Retaining Your Own Children.

When I asked the participants if they had or would retain their children if the school

suggested it or they saw that their children were struggling, nine out of the 10 participants

said yes, but all nine said they would hold their children back very early in their school career

before social issues became important. Jack was the only one that did not or would not hold

103

his child back. He said that his daughter struggled in school, but he worked harder with her

at home. Jack also said, “Retention is a serious issue. Educators need to look at the whole

child, not just the academic issues. I was suffering from some very serious home issues and

retaining me in the middle of all of that did more harm than good” (Personal communication

with participant, May 9, 2015).

Research Questions:

Two research questions guided the focus of this study. After conducting all the

interviews and the focus group discussion, and analyzing all comments of the participants,

both questions were answered through commonalities extracted from the participants’

discussions of their retention experiences. The research questions were:

• How is the experience of grade retention remembered by adults retained in their

K-12 education?

• How has K-12 retention impacted self-efficacy, the belief in the ability to

succeed, and quality of life of adults who were retained during their K-12

education?

o How did retention impact their self-esteem?

o How did retention impact their employment successes and socioeconomic

status?

o How did retention impact their home life and relationships?

The first research question was: How is the experience of grade retention remembered by

adults retained in their K-12 education? Six of the 10 participants remember being very young

for their grade and not ready for the learning expectations of the grade. Six of the 10 participants

remember struggling with reading and feeling frustrated when they realized that most of their

104

classmates were much better readers than they were. Three of the participants were from

military families and remember moving often or having an absentee father for many years of

their childhood. All of them felt that these situations contributed in some way to their need to be

retained. Eight of the participants recall the decision to retain them being made by a

combination of their teacher and their parents, with the mother playing the major role in

educational decisions. Six of the participants did not experience a traumatic situation as a child,

three of them equated their father being away in the military as traumatic, and one participant

experienced trauma through extreme family dysfunction. Four of the participants remember

feeling embarrassed, sad, and disappointed when they found out they were being retained. Four

of the participants don’t remember retention bothering them at the time, and two participants

remember feeling excited about being retained. Eight of the participants were retained in

elementary school and five of those eight were held back in grades 2 and below. Seven of these

eight participants adjusted to the retention well and made new friends quickly. One participant

recalls feeling dumb and not good enough and had a really hard time adjusting to the retention

and the new friend group. Alex was retained in middle school and remembers the social issues

affecting him in negative ways. George was retained in ninth grade and remembers that high

school classes had students from many different grades in them, so most people did not even

realize he failed the ninth grade.

The second research question was: How has K-12 retention impacted self-efficacy, the

belief in the ability to succeed, and quality of life of adults who were retained during their K-12

education? How did retention impact their self-esteem? How did retention impact their

employment successes and socioeconomic status? How did retention impact their home life and

relationships? Eight of the 10 participants felt that retention had been beneficial to their

105

education and had a positive impact on their self-esteem. Seven of the participants felt that the

retention enabled them to grow up and act more maturely throughout their school years. Three

of the participants specifically mentioned that the retention gave them an opportunity to be a

better reader and this impacted their education and self-esteem in a positive way. Two

participants did not feel that retention was a positive experience for them and both felt that their

self-esteem suffered. One participant felt that his self-esteem did not recover until he was an

adult.

Eight of the 10 participants felt that their retention had a positive impact on their

employment successes and socioeconomic status. All eight of these participants felt that the

knowledge they gained from being held back and the maturity that followed helped them to be

successful adults and make a good living. One participant did not feel that the retention had any

effect on his employment successes and socioeconomic status and one participant felt that

retention has not served him well in his adult life because the retention contributed to his low

self-esteem and his dropping out of high school, which contributed to a limited number of job

possibilities and jobs that did not pay well.

All 10 participants did not feel that their retention experience contributed to any added

problems with their home life or relationships. Five of the 10 participants reported receiving

more help with their schoolwork from their parents after the retention and this seemed to

contribute to a better relationship with their parents. One participant already suffered from

severe problems in the home, but he did not feel that the retention made those problems worse.

Summary

Ten adults whose ages ranged from 33 to 81 and whose life work and experiences are

different offered their insight with retention to be examined as part of this research. This

106

research examined these 10 participants’ memories about the retention experience and their

feelings about it now, looking back at their lives from their adult perspective. Through the filling

out of questionnaires, individual interviews, and a focus group discussion made up of four

participants, the researcher has presented the lived meaning of retention for these 10 participants

through direct quotes, thoughts and stories. The answers given on the questionnaire and the

transcribed interviews were analyzed for commonality and four themes emerged: Thoughts on

why retained; memories of retention experience; reflections regarding retention, self-esteem, and

quality of life; and beliefs on retaining their own children. The findings of this research helped

to answer the two research questions. How is the experience of grade retention remembered by

adults retained in their K-12 education? The participants’ memories were varied, but

commonalities emerged that helped to make sense of the memories in light of similar

experiences. How has K-12 retention impacted self-efficacy, the belief in the ability to succeed,

and quality of life of adults who were retained in their K-12 education? How did retention

impact their self-esteem, employment successes, socioeconomic status, and home life and

relationships? The participants offered similar and varied insights into how retention affected

their self worth, job successes, earning capabilities, and home life relationships. The compilation

of this qualitative data seems to be inconsistent with prior research at first glance. But, when

family situations are examined, this research does fall in line with prior research. The findings of

this research provide useful information to parents, educators, and policy makers about the

factors necessary for retention to have a positive effect on lives and lead to a successful school

career. One of my participants said that educators need to look at the entire life of a child, not

just the academic portion, before considering retention.

107

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overview

In order to fully understand what participants experienced and how they experienced it, a

transcendental phenomenological design was followed in this study. “Transcendental

phenomenology is a scientific study of the appearance of things, of phenomena just as we see

them and as they appear to us in consciousness” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 49). Transcendental

means to put aside all preconceived notions and experiences with the phenomena and look at the

experience with fresh eyes. Phenomenology is the study of the common meaning of lived

experiences of several individuals (Creswell, 2013). The purpose of this research is to

understand the impact that retention has had on the lived experiences of adults that live in the

North Georgia area that were retained in their K-12 education. Chapter five includes a summary

of findings of the research, a discussion of the findings and how the findings coincide with the

literature review and the guiding theories, the significance of the findings to all stakeholders that

are involved in retention decisions, a discussion of the limitations of this study, and a

recommendation for future research.

Summary of Findings

This research sought to answer two research questions about the phenomena of retention.

Below is a summary of the findings. Through in-depth analysis of the data, the researcher

identified four themes that helped to summarize the experience through the eyes of the

participants. The four themes are thoughts of why retained; memory of retention experience;

thoughts regarding retention, self-esteem, and quality of life; and thoughts regarding retaining

his/her own children. The four themes helped to answer the research questions. The first two

108

themes helped to answer the first research question and the last two themes helped to answer the

second research question.

Research Question #1: How is the experience of grade retention remembered by

adults retained in their K-12 education?

Six of the 10 participants in this study were some of the youngest students in their grade.

They had birthdays that were very close to the cutoff date for entering either kindergarten or first

grade. My older participants did not go to public kindergarten, so first grade was the entry point

into their educational experience. All but one of these participants felt that their young age and

immaturity were the reasons they were retained. One of these participants was young for his

grade, but felt like his volatile home life caused his need to be retained.

Six of the 10 participants struggled with reading and two of these participants received

special education services in reading. The memories of the reading struggles were still very

vivid after all of the years that have passed and these participants used the word frustrated often.

Three of the 10 participants were from military families and either moved a lot and/or

had fathers that were gone often. Absentee fathers, even when the reason for the absence is

noble, left some deep scars for these participants and contributed to the struggles they

experienced before the decision to retain them was made. Children from military families are

known to move often and the changing of teachers and schools contributed to the gaps in

knowledge experienced by two of these participants.

Eight of the 10 participants said that the decision to retain them was made by a

combination of their teacher and parents. Four of those participants said it was specifically their

mother that met with the teacher and made the decision to retain them. Two participants said

109

that their parents made the decision to retain them on their own because they saw their children

struggling.

Six of the 10 participants did not suffer from a traumatic experience as child that would

have contributed to the need to retain them. Three of the four that did suffer from a traumatic

experience that was pivotal in their school struggles were from military families where the father

was absent a good bit and the mother was left to raise the children on her own. One of these four

participants experienced a dysfunctional home situation with excessive drinking, parties, and

fistfights. He had a hard time concentrating on learning at school when his home life was in

disarray.

Four of the 10 participants remember feeling embarrassed, sad, and disappointed when

they found out they were being retained. Having to leave friend groups that they had become

accustomed to and feelings of not being smart enough were at the heart of these sorrows. Two of

the 10 participants said that the retention really did not bother them. Both of these participants

were young and their mothers made the retention a positive experience. One of these

participants reported that he had the same teacher the retained year and that he really liked her

and wanted to be in her class again. Two of the 10 participants were excited about being

retained. Both of these participants were young for their grade and talked about friendship issues

that made the retention exciting. One participant had a best friend in the lower grade and this

made the retention a positive experience. The other participant wanted to break free of the friend

group that made him feel like an outsider and used the word relieved as his reaction to finding

out he was being retained.

All 10 of the participants said that the retention did not cause problems at home with their

parents or siblings. Five of the 10 participants said that the retention made their parents help

110

with their education more at home. Four of those participants said that their mothers were very

involved in their education from the beginning, but the help intensified after the retention until

they started being successful. One participant said that she does not remember her mom reading

to her or helping her learn her ABCs until after the retention. She said her mom paid more

attention to her own adult life than to her education until the teacher started the retention

conversation.

Research Question #2: How has K-12 retention impacted self-efficacy, the belief in the

ability to succeed, and quality of life of adults who were retained during their K-12 education?

How did retention impact their self-esteem, employment successes, socioeconomic status, and

home life and relationships?

Eight of the 10 participants said that retention was beneficial to their education. Two of

these participants said that they were older and more mature throughout their school career.

Three of the participants said that they became better readers, which affects all aspects of

learning. One said that he became accepted by his peers and was more successful with school-

work. One said that the retention helped her fill in the gaps that had developed due to

absenteeism from sickness, and one said that the lessons learned from trying to graduate on time

have served him well ever since. Two participants said that retention was not beneficial to their

education. One of these participants said that he was too old to be retained in the 7

grade

because social issues outweighed everything else. One of these participants said that the

retention was detrimental to his self-esteem as he was suffering from severe home life issues and

retention was the worst possible outcome for him at the time.

Five of the 10 participants said that retention boosted their self-esteem and all five said

the main reason had to do with feeling good about themselves when they became successful with

111

schoolwork. One participant said that being accepted by his new peer group also boosted his

self-esteem. All of these participants mentioned the important role their teacher played during

the retained year in making the experience good for their self-esteem. Three participants said that

retention lowered their self-esteem. Two of the three participants said that their self-esteem

suffered for a short while after the retention, but that they got over it and experienced high self-

esteem after that. One participant said that his self-esteem was low until he became an adult.

One participant said that he does not remember, so it must not have affected him. Another

participant said that he has always had high self-esteem.

Eight of the 10 participants said that retention had a positive effect on their adult working

lives. They all felt that the knowledge they gained from being held back and the maturity that

followed helped them to be successful adults and make a good living. One said the retention

didn’t affect his working life as an adult negatively or positively, and one said that the whole

retention experience had negative effects on his life. He dropped out of school at the age of 16,

and this caused him to have lower paying jobs in his adult life.

All 10 participants said that their home life and familial relationships did not suffer due to

the retention, and five participants said their parents got more involved in their education after

their retention. Eight of the 10 participants said that they found a new friend group easily in the

retained year, and two participants said that they never really fit into the new group after the

retained year.

Nine out of the 10 participants said that they would or have retained their own children,

but all of them said retention needs to occur early in a school career before social factors get in

the way. One participant said that he did not and would not retain his own children as retention

112

had detrimental consequences for him and he would not want to put his children through that

misery.

Discussion

Retention research that has been conducted over the past 30 years has identified the

common demographics of retained students. The demographics of retained students as defined

by the research are as follows: The majority of students that are retained are boys (Jimerson, et

al., 1997; Meisels & Liaw, 1993), are members of a minority group (Alexander, Entwisel, &

Dauber, 1994; Lorence & Dworkin, 2006), and suffer from poverty (Morris, 2001; Meisels &

Liaw 1993). Many retained students have parents that are not involved in their education and

thus provide little support for their children’s learning (Jimerson, et al., 1997; Miedel &

Reynolds, 1999), and have mothers that have less than or equal to a high school diploma

(Ferguson, et al., 2001; Cairns, Cairns, & Neckerman, 1989). The demographics of the 10

participants of this research study are as follows: Six out of the 10 participants were male, all 10

participants were white, three of the 10 participants reported a family income that would qualify

them as children of poverty, one of the 10 participants reported having parents that were not

involved in his education, and four of the participants had mothers that had an education less

than or equal to a high school diploma.

Other common characteristics of retained students are as follows: English is their second

language, students are younger than same grade peers, students make frequent school changes,

high absenteeism, attention span problems, low self-esteem in terms of academic competence,

behavior problems in a school setting, and poor peer relationships (Jimerson & Renshaw, 2012).

Other characteristics of the 10 participants of this study are: All 10 participants have English as

their first language, six of the 10 participants were young for their grade, two of the 10

113

participants attended multiple schools with multiple teachers, and one participant reported high

absenteeism due to illness. The demographics of the participants of this study do not align with

all the demographics suggested by past research, but some of the demographics are the same.

There is research to support the practice of retention, and research that opposes retention.

Most of the research available does not support retention as a stand-alone intervention for low

performing students. The majority of research does not support the practice of retention and

highlights the ineffectiveness of this practice (Jimerson, 2001). But, the research that has been

done that showed positive effects of retention have commonalities. In Ferguson’s longitudinal

study, the results showed the main contributing factors to success after experiencing retention

were higher educational level of the mothers, higher value on education by the family unit,

higher socioeconomic status (SES), lower kindergarten social functioning deficits, younger age

in kindergarten, and higher scores on early readiness measures upon entering kindergarten

(Ferguson, et. al., 2001).

Eight out of 10 participants in my study had a positive experience with retention. This

alone seems to stand in opposition to the bulk of the research on retention, but these eight

participants did possess many of the main factors that have been suggested as needed for

retention to be successful. All eight participants had families, especially mothers that valued

education and were involved in their education after the retention. This seems to be the common

thread that is interwoven through all of their retention success stories. Four of the eight

participants that had a successful retention story were also young for their grade with birthdays

close to the cutoff date for entering kindergarten or first grade. Seven of the eight participants

had mothers that graduated from high school and four of those seven participants had mothers

that had an education level above high school. Five of the eight participants with a successful

114

retention story had family incomes that provided a comfortable life style for their families and

three reported having incomes that were meager. But, these three said that they had what they

needed at the time and did not place importance on their financial situation.

Two of the 10 participants in my study reported having a negative experience with

retention. Their experiences with retention and feelings about how retention affected their lives

are right in line with the research about the negative effects of retention. Many times, the

retention leads to feelings of low self-worth and poor attitudes about school and the work

associated with school (Carlton & Winsler, 1999). One of the two participants that reported a

negative experience with retention talked about not feeling good enough or smart enough after

the retention and felt that these feelings of low self-efficacy were a direct result of the retention.

The other participant that reported a negative experience with retention was in middle school

when he was retained, and he felt that the negative social implications far outweighed any

possible positive academic results. When children are held back, they basically lose the

friendships they had made in the previous years and have to start all over again with making

friends and fitting into a new group (Roberts, 2008). This change is a change in the child’s

culture and can have a negative impact on the child’s development (Vgotsky, 1978).

Four of the 10 participants of this study reported a family income that would place them

in the poverty range. Three of the four had a successful retention experience and feel that they

always had what they needed. They also reported that they had involved, supportive parents,

especially mothers. One of the four participants that reported a family income indicative of

poverty also had a volatile home life where drinking, partying, and fistfights were common. He

also reported that his mother was not involved in his education. All of these factors combined

with poverty go right along with the research about children of poverty. “Children raised in

115

poverty rarely choose to behave differently, but they are faced daily with overwhelming

challenges that affluent children never have to confront, and their brains have adapted to

suboptimal conditions in ways that undermine good school performance” (Jensen, 2009, p. 14).

In his book entitled, Teaching with Poverty in Mind, Jensen (2009) discusses four risk factors

that have a negative impact on the education of children raised in poverty. These are emotional

and social challenges, acute and chronic stressors, cognitive lags, and health and safety issues

(Jensen, 2009).

The bulk of research does not support retaining students early in their educational career.

Comparison of students who were retained in lower grades to students who were retained in later

grades fails to show benefits of early grade retention (Jimerson & Renshaw, 2012). My study

stands in opposition to this research as eight of the 10 participants in this study reported that

retention was beneficial to their education and all eight of these participants were retained in

elementary school. Also, all eight of these participants would consider retention for their own

children early in their education because of the success they experienced. All of them said they

would want to retain them in kindergarten or 1

grade because they felt the younger they were,

the easier the transition would be.

Dong (2010) conducted a study using data from the US Early Childhood Longitudinal

Study – Kindergarten Cohort 1998-1999. Fall and spring testing was done on these students in

kindergarten, first, and third grade. The sample contained 8672, of which 8391 were promoted

after kindergarten and 281 were retained in kindergarten. The results were positive for the

retainees in the beginning, but the positive results diminished over time (Dong, 2010). My study

does not corroborate these findings because the eight participants of this study reported being

more successful with school throughout their school career. Dong’s research needs to be

116

extended to look into the home lives of these 281 retained kindergartners to see how many of

them had parental support for their education, especially a supportive mother.

Implications

There are learning theories to support both sides of the retention debate. Piaget and

Gessell are credited with learning theories that could be used to support retention. Piaget’s

Theory of Cognitive Development is broken down into stages, and children’s movement through

the stages directly relates to how they understand the world (Cherry, n.d.). The age that children

reach the stages varies from child to child, and children cannot be forced into a new stage if their

brains are not ready to function at that level. Gesell is credited with the Maturation Theory and

believes that maturation is an active psychological process and that there is a strong connection

between maturation and learning (Gesell, 1933). The Maturation Theory substantiates that

retaining students that are not mature enough to move to the next level in school gives the

student the opportunity to catch up and be successful (Rand, 2013). Bandura proposed The

Social Cognitive Theory, which is a theory that could be used to oppose retention. The theory

of self-efficacy is embedded in the social cognitive theory and this theory emphasizes the role of

observational learning and social experience in the development of the personality (Bandura,

1989). Bandura defined self-efficacy as one’s beliefs in the ability to succeed in certain

situations. External experiences and self-perception influence self-efficacy and self-efficacy in

turn influences one’s self-esteem (Bandura, 1989). This theory could be used to support social

promotion in that students need to be promoted to foster high self-efficacy in order to perform

well and eventually catch up to their peers. Also, being in an environment where their peers are

learning at the expected level will positively influence them to start performing at the expected

level in the classroom.

117

After conducting this research and studying the retention experiences and home lives of

the 10 participants involved, I believe that a strong, secure family unit where the parents,

especially the mother, support education is one of the common threads in retention success. The

other common thread is the presence of a strong teacher during the retained year that helps

students like school and feel good about themselves. These seem to far outweigh socioeconomic

status, gender, and educational level of the mother. One of my participants, Jack, who reported

detrimental effects of retention due to his horrible home life, summed up the best advice for

educators about retention in the following quote. He said, “Retention is a serious issue.

Educators need to look at the whole child, not just the academic issues. I was suffering from

some very serious home issues and retaining me in the middle of all of that did more harm than

good.” Retention is not appropriate for all students, and educators need to know as much as they

can about the children they are considering for retention. Retention should be reviewed on a

case-by-case basis and all options available should be considered (Bowman, 2005). Educational

administrators need to lead retention decisions and insist on a thorough investigation of all

aspects of a child’s life before making a recommendation to retain or socially promote a child.

School counselors can be an integral part of a retention committee and help lead discussions

about home life issues, self-esteem, and social/emotional aspects of a child’s life. Teachers need

to intentionally form a meaningful relationship with retained students beginning on day one of

the retained year to discover the best avenues for building up the self-esteem of these students so

that the retained year can be the beginning of a successful school career. Parents need to

understand the important role they play in a successful retention experience and receive

counseling themselves about the best ways to support their children at home with their studies

and helping them to adapt to new friend groups.

118

The data on the success of public schools is grim. Statistics gathered over the past

several years indicate that by the 9

grade, 30 to 50% of all students have been retained

sometime in their K-12 education, approximately 2.5 million students are retained in the U.S.

each year, and this extra year of schooling costs the U.S. taxpayer in excess of 14 billion dollars

annually (Jimerson, Ferguson, Whipple, Anderson, & Dalton, 2002). The National Center for

Educational Statistics (NCES) published a report in 2013 that provided drop-out data from the

2009-10 school year for high schools in the United States. The average freshman graduation

rate (AFGR) was 78.2% in 2009-10, which is an “estimate of the percent of high school students

who graduate within four years of first starting the 9

grade” (Stillwell & Sable, 2013, p. 1). In

the U.S. 514,238 public school students dropped out of grades 9-12 in the 2009-10 school year,

which represents 3.4% of the high school population in the U.S. These statistics indicate that

U.S. schools are not a successful endeavor for a significant number of students (Corman, 2003).

Research suggests alternatives to traditional schools and practices. Preschool programs, before

and after school programs, year-round school, and summer school are some alternatives to

retention and social promotion that have proven effective (Jimerson et al., 2006; Shepard &

Smith, 1990). Other interventions that have proven track records are smaller class sizes,

multiage grouping, and looping, which is a practice where one teacher moves up to the next

grade with a class of students (Lekrone & Griffith, 2006). Some of these ideas would require

funding, but if all stakeholders are serious about making changes that are best for all students,

then the pursuit has to be important enough to garner the necessary funding.

One of the questions in my focus group discussion was “How could the whole public

education system be changed to benefit all learners?” Three of the four participants in the focus

group discussion were teachers and the other participant was a youth pastor. All of them have

119

worked with adolescents for a minimum of 10 years. The following are ideas that they offered

for making public schools more successful for all learners.

• All students are not college bound and should not be made to fit into that educational

mold. Alternatives should be offered.

• Schools should be organized around interests of the students.

• Schools should be organized around learning styles of the students.

• The practice of inclusion has gone too far and is impeding the learning of the other

students in the classroom. The three teacher participants felt inclusion was a great model

for students that knew how to behave, but including the severe behavior problem students

in the regular classroom was unfair to the other students in the class that had to try and

learn in the midst of the chaos that extreme behaviors cause.

• Teachers need more planning time to plan lessons that reach all the diverse learners

within a classroom.

Limitations

This study has many limitations that stem from the sample used for the research. The

participants of this study are a small sample from one small town in North Georgia. All

participants were found through surveying employees of one school system that is not ethnically

diverse. All 10 participants were white, and nine of the 10 participants had a decent home life

where the mother was supportive of their education. All participants were volunteers, and their

stories were told with their own biases, and were recalling events that happened many years

before, making their stories at the mercy of their memories.

120

Recommendations for Future Research

There are many studies that that have been conducted on the topic of retention. There are

only a few that have adults that were retained in their K-12 education as the participants in the

study. More research needs to be done with adult participants. Most of the participants of this

study were retained in elementary school. More research needs to be done with adult

participants that were retained in middle school. Research shows that retention is not usually

successful for students that suffer from a chaotic home life. The majority of participants for my

study had decent home life situations. More research should be done with adult participants that

were retained, and had difficult home lives. The majority of participants was retained in

elementary school and had a successful retention experience. The research shows that students

retained in elementary school are at a greater risk of dropping out of high school (Jimerson,

Anderson, & Whipple, 2002). My research does not support this conclusion, but the majority of

participants in my study had supportive mothers and good home lives. More research needs to

be conducted on effectiveness of retention in the primary grades and familial situations.

Other research topics in regard to retention could center on alternatives to the traditional

schools and methods of education. For example, non-graded elementary schools and schools

centered on learning styles or interests should be studied to see if these methods of educating low

performing students are more successful than the traditional school environment.

Conclusion

A review of the literature on retention shows that the negative effects of retention far

outweigh the positive effects. In light of this negative research, retention is still widely practiced

in schools across the U.S. today, especially in elementary schools. The intent of my research

was to study retention from the viewpoint of adults looking back at the experience of retention

121

and the impact it has made on their lives. The common thread that was interwoven through the

stories of eight out of 10 participants that reported retention to have a positive impact on their

education and adult work life was the presence of a mother that was supportive of their education

and helped them at home with their schoolwork. Another common thread was the impact of the

teacher during their retained year that went beyond their academic teaching skills. All

participants that reported a successful retention experience liked their teacher during the retained

year and this made them enjoy school and feel good about themselves. Jack, the participant in

the study that felt retention had been detrimental to his education and adult working life, suffered

from some severe home life issues that made it hard for him to concentrate on schoolwork. He

describes himself as not feeling safe, witnessing drunken parties and fights, and not getting

enough sleep. He said that in light of all he was going through in his personal life, retaining him

and forcing him to go through even more changes and stress was the wrong decision for him. He

doesn’t remember having a teacher that inspired him until the 6

grade and that teacher stands

alone in his memory. He stressed the need for educators to get to know the students being

considered for retention and evaluate the whole child when making retention decisions. As an

educator that is faced with retention decisions every year, I wanted to see if and when retention

was beneficial. When students are retained, educators do have the best interest of the students in

mind and conducting a study over a long span of the lives of the participants, helped the

researcher understand that every child is different and that retention decisions must be on a case-

by-case basis. If the factors that help make retention beneficial to education are absent, then

other alternatives must be investigated.

122

REFERENCES

Aldridge, J. (2010). Differentiated instruction. Childhood Education, 86(3), 193+. Retrieved

From

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA220468017&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r

&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=94a3ecc3bc0ae72851282bd3909fc644

Alexander, K. L., Entwisel, D. R, & Dauber, S. L. (1994). On the success of failure: A

reassessment of the effects of retention in the primary grades. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Alliance for Excellence Education. (2009). The high costs of high school dropouts: What

the nation pays for inadequate high schools. Retrieved from

http://www.all4ed.org/files/HighCost.pdf

Anonymous. (2012). Absenteeism epidemic hinders academic achievement. American Teacher,

97(1), 7.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action (pp. 5-107). Prentice Hall.:

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-

efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729-735.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual

Review of Psychology, 52(1).

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted

impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development,

67(3), 1206-1222.

Barge, J. D. (2014). 2014 CCRPI indicators. Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-

123

Instruction-and-Assessment/Accountability/Pages/default.aspx

Barge, J. D. (2013). Teacher keys effectiveness system. Retrieved from

http://www.gadoe.org/school-improvement/teacher-and-leader-

effectiveness/documents/tkes%20handbook%20final%207-18-2013.pdf

Bouck, E. C., Courtad, C. A., Heutsche, A., Okolo, C. M., & Englert, C. S. (2009). The virtual

history museum a universally designed approach to social studies instruction.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(2), 14-20.

Bowman, L. J. (2005). Grade retention: Is it a help or hindrance to student

academic success? Preventing School Failure, 42-46.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning

Disabilities [H.W. Wilson - EDUC], 38(6), 485.

Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2010). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies

for effective practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., & Neckerman, H. J. (1989). Early school dropout: Configurations

and determinants. Child Development, 60(6), 14371452. doi:10.2307/1130933

Carbo, M. (2009). Match the style of instruction to the style of reading. Phi Delta Kappan,

90(5), 373-378.

Carlton, M. P., & Winsler, A. (1999). School readiness: The need for a paradigm shift

[Electronic version]. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 338.

Cherry, K. (n.d.) Piaget’s stages of cognitive development: Background and key concepts.

Retrieved from http://psychology.about.com/od/piagetstheory/a/keyconcepts.htm

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Preparing America’s students for success.

Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/

124

Corman, H. (2003). The effects of state policies, individual characteristics, family

characteristics, and neighbourhood characteristics on grade repetition in the

United States. Economics of Education Review, 22(4), 409-420.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches

(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. ISBN: 9781412995306.

David, J. L. (2015). What retention says about…/grade retention. ASCD. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar08/vol65/num06/Grade-

Retention.aspx

Dong, Y. (2010). Kept back to get ahead? Kindergarten retention and academic

performance. European Economic Review, 54, 219-236.

Duncan, G. J., & Dunifon, R. (1998). "Soft-skills" and long-run labor market success. Research

in Labor Economics, 17, 123–149.

Eisner, E. (2003). Questionable assumptions about schooling. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (9),

648-657

Ferguson, P., Jimerson, S. R., & Dalton, M. K. (2001). Sorting out successful failures:

Exploratory analyses of factors associated with academic and behavioral outcomes of

retained students. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 327–341.

Fournier, J. R. (2009). A qualitative study of the personal reactions and experiences

of adolescent students who have been retained. Retrieved from ProQuest UMI

Dissertation Publishing. (3394738)

Gesell, A. (1933). Maturation and the patterning of behavior. A Handbook Of Child Psychology,

1, 209235.

Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in

125

qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6), 291-

295. doi:10.1038/bdj.2008.192

Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White

Plains, NY: Longman.

Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2006). Getting Farther Ahead by Staying Behind:

A Second-Year Evaluation of Florida’s Policy to End Social Promotion. New

York: Center for Civic Innovation, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

Civic Report No. 49.

Hernandez-Tutop, J. (2012). Social promotion or grade repetition: What’s best

for the 21

century student? Online submission

Holloway, I. (1997). Basic concepts for qualitative research (p. 2). Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies.

Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention, 16, 33.

Holmes, C. T., & Matthews, K. M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on

elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Quebec, Canada.

Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Hong, G., & Yu, B. (2007). Early-grade retention and children's reading and

math learning in elementary years. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 29(4), 239-261.

Jackson, G. B. (1975). The research evidence on the effects of grade retention. Review of

Educational Research, 45, 613-645.

Jacob, B. A. (2002). Where the boys aren't: Non-cognitive skills, returns to school and the

126

gender gap in higher education. Economics of Education review, 21(6), 589-598.

Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kids' brains

and what schools can do about it. Alexandria: ASCD.

Jimerson, S. R. (1999). On the failure of failure: Examining the association

between early grade retention and education and employment outcomes during

late adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 37(3), 243-272.

Jimerson, S. R. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for

practice in the 21st century [Electronic version]. School Psychology Review, 30(3),

420.

Jimerson, S., Carlson, E., Rotert, M., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). A prospective,

longitudinal study of the correlates and consequences of early grade retention. Journal

of School Psychology, 55(1), 3-25.

Jimerson, S. R., & Ferguson, P. (2007). A longitudinal study of grade retention:

Academic and behavioral outcomes of retained students through adolescence.

School Psychology Quarterly, 22(3), 314–339.

Jimerson, S. R., Ferguson, P., Whipple, A. D., Anderson, G. E., & Dalton, M. J. (2002).

Exploring the association between grade retention and dropout: A longitudinal

study examining socio-emotional, behavioral, and achievement characteristics

of retained students. The California School Psychologist, 7(1), 51-62.

Jimerson, S. R., & Kaufman, A. M. (2003). Reading, writing and retention: A primer

on grade retention research [Electronic version]. Reading Teacher, 56(7), 622.

Jimerson, S. R., Pletcher, S. M., & Graydon, K. (2006). Beyond grade retention and social

promotion: Promoting the social and academic competence of students.

127

Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 85-97.

Jimerson, S. R., & Renshaw, T. L. (2012). Retention and social promotion. Principal

Leadership, 13(1), 12.

Klotz, M. B., & Canter, A. (2007). Response to intervention (RTI): A primer for parents.

Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved July, 10, 2009.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research

ed.). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.

Larsen, D. E., & Akmal, T. T. (2007). Making decisions in the dark: Disconnects

between retention research and middle-level practice. NASSP Bulletin, 91(1),

33-56.

Leckrone, M., & Griffith, B. (2006). Retention realities and educational standards.

Children & Schools, 28(1), 53-58.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Lloyd, J. W., Griffith, C. A., Lane, K. L., & Tankersley, M. (2010). Grade retention of

students during grades K-8 predicts reading achievement and progress during

secondary schooling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 26(1), 51-66.

Lorence, J., & Dworkin, G. (2006). Elementary grade retention in Texas and reading

achievement among racial groups: 1994-2002. Review of Policy Research, 23(5),

999-1031. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Mann, D. (1987). Can we help dropouts? Thinking about the undoable. In G. Natriello (Ed.),

School dropouts: Patterns and policies (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

McCluskey, C. P., Bynum, T. S., & Patchin, J. W. (2004). Reducing chronic absenteeism: An

128

assessment of an early truancy initiative. Crime & Delinquency, 50(2), 214-234.

doi:10.1177/0011128703258942

McCoy, A. R. & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Grade retention and school performance: An extended

investigaton. Journal of School Psychology, 37(3), 273-298.

Meisels, S. J., & Liaw, F. R. (1993). Failure in grade: Do retained students catch up?

Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 69–77.

Miazga, J. (2000). Developmental theories: It's time to review. Journal of

Professional Counseling, Practice, Theory, & Research, 28(1), 4.

Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for

disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37(4),

379-402. (Previous version presented at Head Start’s Fourth Annual Research

Conference, July 10, 1998.

Morris, D. R. (2001). Assessing the implementation of high-stakes reform: Aggregate

relationships between retention rates and test results. NASSP Bulletin, 85(629), 18-34.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the

craft. Information and organization, 17(1), 2-26.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009). The condition of education 2009. Retrieved

from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009081.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010). The condition of education 2010. Retrieved

from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010028.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2013). The condition of education 2013. Retrieved

from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013037.pdf

129

Ollerton, M. (2014). Differentiation in mathematic classrooms. Mathematics

Teaching, 240, 43-46,4. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1534501101?accountid=12085

Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved

from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mrp/eff.html

Parr, A. J. (2010). A quantitative study of the characteristics of transient and non-transient

students in Nevada elementary schools. ProQuest LLC.

Parrish, S. (2010). Number talks: Helping children build mental math and computation

strategies, grades K-5. Math Solutions.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods . SAGE Publications, inc.

Penna, A., & Tallerico, M. (2005). Grade retention and school completion: Through student’s

eyes. The Journal of At Risk Issues, 11(1), 13-17.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.

Pope, C., & Mays, N. (1995). Qualitative research: reaching the parts other methods cannot

311(6996), 42-45.

Powell, P. J. (2011). Repeating views on grade retention. Childhood Education, 87(2), 90.

Rand, L. E. (2013). The Impacts of Grade Retention: Benefits and Challenges

Perceived by Retained Middle School Students (Doctoral Dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3597675)

Response to Intervention: Georgia’s Student Achievement Pyramid of Interventions. (2011).

gadoe.org. Retrieved August 17, 2014, from http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-

Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-Instruction/

130

Roberts, D. C. (2007). Perceptions of educators on grade retention: A qualitative

study (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations

Publishing. (3290492)

Rose, J. S., Medway, F. J., Cantrell, V. L., & Marus, S. H. (1983). A fresh look at the

retention-promotion controversy. Journal of School Psychology, 21(3), 201-211.

doi:10.1016/0022-4405(83)90015-8

Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and

schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583-625.

Schwartz, W. (1995). School dropouts: New information for an old problem. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED386515)

Shaw, T. C. (2011). Grade retention and social promotion among

middle school students (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest UMI

Dissertation Publishing. (3453517)

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for enduring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.

Education for Information, 22, 63-75.

Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1990). Synthesis of research on grade retention. Educational

Leadership, 47(8), 84-88.

Silberglitt, B., Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & Appleton, J. J. (2006). Does the

timing of grade retention make a difference? Examining the effects of early

versus later retention. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 134-141.

Smith, C. M. (2013). Elementary school grade retention: A qualitative study of

high school seniors' perceptions of being held back (Doctoral Dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (3588976)

131

Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009) Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory,

methods, and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Steiner, K. (1986). Grade retention and promotion. (Position paper). Retrieved from

http://ericae.net/edo/ED267899.htm

Stillwell, R., & Sable, J. (2013). Public school graduates and dropouts from the common core of

data: School year 2009-10 (NCES 2013-309). Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013309rev.pdf

Tomlinson, C. A., & Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2003).

Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive

teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Trochim, W. (2006). Qualitative validity. Social Research Methods. Retrieved from

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.php

Tuck, K. D. (1989). A Study of Students Who Left: DC Public School Dropouts.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walters, D. M., & Borgers, S. B. (1995). Student retention: Is it effective?

[Electronic version]. School Counselor, 42(4), 300.

Wilson, T. D. (2002). Alfred Schutz, phenomenology and research methodology for

information behaviour research. The New Review of Information Behaviour

Research, 3(71), 1-15.

Wolfe, B. L., & Hughes, J. (2002). Social and non-market benefits from education in

an advanced economy. Paper prepared for Conference Series 47, Education in the

21st Century: Meeting the Challenges of a Changing World, Federal Reserve

Bank of Boston.

132

Appendices

Appendix A

Qualifying Survey

1) Name: ______________________________

2) Were you retained (held back a year) in your K-12 education? ___Yes ___No

3) If you answered no to number 2, you do not have to fill out the rest of the survey.

If you answered yes to number 2, please fill out entire survey.

4) Phone Number: ________________________________

5) Place of Work: ________________________________________

6) Gender: ___ Male ___Female

7) Age: ___18 to 30 ___30 to 40 ___40 to 50 ___50 to 60 ___ over 60

8) Race: ___Hispanic ___African American ___Asian ___American Indian

___White ___Other

133

Appendix B

Questionnaire For Participants

1) Name: _______________________________________

2) Age: _____

3) Birthdate: _______________

4) Race:__________

5) What was your age when you began school?

6) In which grade(s) were you retained? _____

7) How old were you when you were retained?

8) Did you receive special education services? ___Yes ___No

9) What was the income level of your family when you were in school? ___Below $20,000

___ $20,000 to $40,000 ___$40,000 to $60,000 ___$60,000 to $80,000 ___$80,000 to

$100,000 ___ over $100,000

10) What was the education level of your father? ___Until age 16 ___High school

___Bachelor’s Degree ___Master’s Degree ___Higher Degree

11) What was the education level of your mother? ___Until age 16 ___High school

___Bachelor’s Degree ___Master’s Degree ___Higher Degree

12) Who raised you?

134

13) If you had siblings raised in the home with you, what is their education level and

Were they retained?

Sibling #1________Education Level Retained ___Yes ___No

Sibling #2? ________Education Level Retained ___Yes ___No

Sibling #3? ? ________Education Level Retained ___Yes ___No

14) Did you graduate from high school? ___Yes ___No

15) If you answered no to number 14, did you obtain a GED after dropping out of school?

___Yes ___No

16) Why do you think you were held back?

17)

Do you have a police record? ___Yes ___No

18) What is your personal income level now? ___Below $20,000 ___ $20,000 to $40,000

___$40,000 to $60,000 ___$60,000 to $80,000 ___$80,000 to $100,000 ___ over

$100,000

135

Appendix C

Semi-Structured Interview Questions

1) How was the decision to retain you made? Who was involved with this decision?

2) Did you experience any traumatic situations as a child, such as the divorce of parents,

etc? Do you feel that situation had an impact on your retention?

3) How did you find out that you were being retained?

4) How do you remember feeling about this decision?

5) How did you feel on the first day of school of the retained year?

6) How did your friends that got promoted act toward you? How did your new

classmates act toward you?

7) Did the retention cause problems for you at home with parents or siblings? If so, in

what way?

8) Do you feel that your retention was beneficial to your education? Why or why not?

9) Do you feel that a different solution would have been a better? Why?

10) How do you feel the retention impacted your self-esteem at the time? Throughout

your school years? As an adult?

11) Tell me about your employment history as an adult. Do you feel that the retention

impacted your job successes? Socioeconomic status? In what ways?

12) Do you feel that retention impacted your home life and relationships at the time of the

retention? Throughout your school years? As an adult?

13) If you have school-aged children living in your home, were they retained? If so, how

did that experience work out for them?

14) Is there anything you would like to tell me about your experience with retention that

136

I have failed to ask?

137

Appendix D

Focus Group Questions

1) Why were you retained? What factors contributed to you not being successful in school

at the time of your retention?

2) Tell me if and why you liked school before you were retained. After?

3) I know I asked this question in the private interviews, but how did you feel when you

found out you were being retained?

4) Do you feel that your retention could have been avoided? Explain

5) If you feel that retention was not beneficial to you, what other strategy or action would

have been beneficial? Explain.

138

6) What have you learned from your retention that could benefit your own children?

7) How could the whole public education system be changed to benefit all learners?

139

Appendix E

Approval Letter From IRB

140

Appendix F

Informed Consent

CONSENT FORM

A QUALITATIVE PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE LIVED EXPERIENCES OF

ADULTS IN THE NORTH GEORGIA AREA THAT WERE RETAINED IN GRADES K-12.

Betsy Green

Liberty University

School of Education

You are invited to be in a research study of the impact of grade retention on the lives of adults. You were

selected as a possible participant because you indicated that you had been retained during your K-12

education. I ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the

study.

Betsy Green, a doctoral candidate in the School of Education at Liberty University is conducting this

study.

Background Information:

The purpose of this study is to understand the impact that retention has had on the lived experiences of

adults in the North Georgia area that were retained in their K-12 education.

Procedures:

If you agree to be in this study, I would ask you to do the following things:

1) Complete a questionnaire about your experience with grade retention.

2) Participate in one 30-minute private interview with the researcher that will be audio recorded.

3) Possibly participate in one 30-minute focus group with three or four other participants to further

discuss the experience of retention that will be audio recorded.

Risks and Benefits of being in the Study:

The study has minimal risks:

The risks of this study are no more than the participant would encounter in everyday life.

The benefit to participation is the opportunity to be a part of research that will seek to impact educational

policy based on the impact that retention has had on the lives of adults that were retained in their K-12

education.

Compensation:

You will receive a $20 Wal-Mart gift card after the interviews and focus group discussion for your

participation in this study. If you withdraw from the study early, no gift card will be given.

Confidentiality:

141

The records of this study will be kept private. In any sort of report I might publish, I will not include any

information that will make it possible to identify a subject. Research records will be stored securely and

only the researcher will have access to the records.

Voluntary Nature of the Study:

Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your

current or future relations with Liberty University. If you decide to participate, you are free to not answer

any question or withdraw at any time without affecting those relationships.

Contacts and Questions:

The researcher conducting this study is Betsy Green. You may ask any questions you have now. If you

have questions later, you are encouraged to contact her at 706-974-7346. If you have any questions or

concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher, you are

encouraged to contact the Institutional Review Board, 1971 University Blvd, Suite 1837, Lynchburg, VA

24515 or email at irb@liberty.edu.

Please notify the researcher if you would like a copy of this information to keep for your records.

Statement of Consent:

I have read and understood the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. I

consent to participate in the study.

(NOTE: DO NOT AGREE TO PARTICIPATE UNLESS IRB APPROVAL INFORMATION WITH

CURRENT DATES HAS BEEN ADDED TO THIS DOCUMENT.)

The researcher has my permission to audio-record me as part of my participation in this study.

Signature: __________________________________________________ Date: ________

Signature of Investigator: _____________________________________ Date: ______________