Did I read this right? G.I. against 3rd grade retention?

by David Safier

I can't believe I have this right. It looks like the Goldwater Institute's Daily Email says holding students back in the 3rd grade does no good, since any progress they make disappears in a few years, and it can even lead to an increased dropout rate.

This review of all available scientific research found that some students who were retained in the third grade fared slightly better in reading for the first few years, but this advantage fades rather quickly. By the end of sixth grade, students who had been held back performed no better in their classes than students who were not held back, and they were more likely to drop out. More recently, a study published by the Miami Dade County Public Schools in 2008 found that any benefits from retaining students in the third grade disappear by the end of sixth grade. Simply put, holding students back is not effective over time.

Wow. Third grade retention isn't as effective as G.I. has claimed. I could have written that.

Oops. I did. Kind of.

See, the actual Daily Email claims two other programs only have a temporary effect on students — full day kindergarten and preschool. The real difference is, G.I. is against full day kindergarten and state-funded preschool, so it hauled out research to say they have no lasting effects. But the research I cited saying grade retention has no long term effects and increases the drop out rate of students held back — here and here (You can read my post on the topic) — that research G.I. conveniently ignores.

I only had to substitute a few phrases in the original Daily Email to create the anti-grade-retention piece above. Here is the original with the removed phrases restored, and my additions crossed out.

This review of all available scientific research found that some students who were retained in the third grade full-day kindergarten students fared slightly better in reading, writing and math in the first grade for the first few years, but this advantage fades rather quickly. By the end of sixth third grade, students who had  been held back enrolled in full-day kindergarten performed no better in their classes than students who were not held back, and they were more likely to drop out went to kindergarten for a half-day only (which Arizona is still funding). More recently, a study published by the Miami Dade County Public Schools in 2008 by the U.S. Health and Human Services Department released in January 2010  found that any benefits from retaining students in the third grade Head Start pre-school classes  disappear by the end of sixth first grade. Simply put, holding students back is all-day kindergarten, pre-school, and other early childhood education programs are not effective over time.

Goldwater Institute: bringing you all the facts, half truths and lies that fit their agenda.

This Daily Email, by the way, didn't come from the keyboard of Matthew Ladner. It came from Le Templar, who used to work for the East Valley Trib and was hired recently by G.I. as an investigative reporter. And this is what they have him doing — rehashing material G.I. has written about countless times already, and distorting the studies he's referring to on top of that.

If Le Templar wants to do some real investigation, he can check into the research I cited about the fleeting effects, and possible negative effects, of third grade retention, to see if I got it right. Or he can investigate whether the proposed 1% sales tax hike will cost the average AZ family $600 as Darcy Olsen claims (It won't). Or if it's possible to stretch the English language far enough to call bus drivers bureaucrats without creating a tear in the space/time continuum.

For Le Templar to be nothing but another mouthpiece spouting the same old stuff is poor use of a former reporter's talents.