International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2014, Vol. 10(3) 6-16

The True Costs of Social Promotion and Retention

Matthew Lynch

pp. 6 - 16   |  Manu. Number: ijpe.2015.035

Published online: October 15, 2014  |   Number of Views: 10  |  Number of Download: 91


Policies on social promotion and retention, although formulated to regulate academic success and failure in the field of K-12 education, have become burdensome and are now considered damaging to the public education system. The various stakeholders in education, including students, teachers, education policy makers, parents, and employers are all undermined by the pass or fail mentality of the current system. As failure continues to mean that a student is either retained or promoted without the necessary mastery of skills and knowledge deemed age appropriate, all of these stakeholders pay a price or absorb a cost that can hardly be made up. Because of these costs, a more comprehensive probe on current policies is needed to either throw away ineffective ones or improve on viable ones.

Keywords: Education policy, social promotion, retention, standardized tests

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Lynch, M. (2014). The True Costs of Social Promotion and Retention . International Journal of Progressive Education, 10(3), 6-16.

Lynch, M. (2014). The True Costs of Social Promotion and Retention . International Journal of Progressive Education, 10(3), pp. 6-16.

Chicago 16th edition
Lynch, Matthew (2014). "The True Costs of Social Promotion and Retention ". International Journal of Progressive Education 10 (3):6-16.

  1. Beebe-Frankenberger, M., Bocain, K., MacMillan, D., & Gresham, F. (2004). Sorting second-grade students: Differentiating those retained from those promoted. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 204-215. [Google Scholar]
  2. Burkam, D., LoGerfo, L., Ready, D., & Lee, V. (2007). The differential effects of repeating kindergarten. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 12(2), 103-136. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dong, Y. (2009). Kept back to get ahead? Kindergarten retention and academic performance. European Economic Review, 54(2), 219-236. [Google Scholar]
  4. Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Erikson, E. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. [Google Scholar]
  5. Fanguy, J., & Mathis, R. (2012). Psychosocial fallout from grade retention: Implication for educators. Delta Journal of Education, 2(2), 69-82. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hauser, R., & Frederick, C. A. (2005). Grade retention in the age of accountability. Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  8. Holmes, C., & Matthews, K. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54, 225-236. [Google Scholar]
  9. Jimerson, S. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School of Psychology Review, 30(3), 420-437. [Google Scholar]
  10. Jimerson, S., Pletcher, S., & Kerr, M. (2005). Alternatives to grade retention. Principal Leadership, 5(6), 11-15. [Google Scholar]
  11. Klima, S. (2007). The children we leave behind: Effects of high-stakes testing on dropout rates. [Google Scholar]
  12. Review of Law and Social Justice, 17(1), 3-32. [Google Scholar]
  13. Markey, J. (1988). The labor market problems of today's high school dropouts. Monthly Labor Review, 36, 36. [Google Scholar]
  14. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing. [Google Scholar]
  15. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  16. Penfield, R. (2010). Test-based retention: Does it stand up to professional standards for fair and appropriate test use? Educational Researcher, 39(2), 100-119. [Google Scholar]
  17. Pomplun, M. (1988). Retention, the earlier, the better? Journal of Educational Research, 81(5), 281- 287. [Google Scholar]
  18. National Association of School Psychologists. (2003). Position statement on student grade retention and social promotion. Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  19. Thompson, C., & Cunningham, E. (2000). Retention and social promotion: Research and  implications for policy. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. [Google Scholar]
  20. Walters, D., & Borgers, S. (1995). Student retention: Is it effective? School Counselor, 42(4), 300- 310. [Google Scholar]
  21. West, M. (2012). Is retaining students in the early grades self-defeating? Washington, DC: Center on Children and Families at Brookings. [Google Scholar]