By Thomas Ultican 3/22/2026
Twenty-six American states have a mandatory third-grade retention policy for students who do not pass the state’s reading exam and Maryland is set to implement that policy in 2027. According to researchers, this is bad thinking based on intuition not science. Writing for Education Trust, Brittney Davis declared, “The research is clear that grade retention is not effective over time, and it is related to many negative academic, social, and emotional outcomes for students — especially students of color who have been retained.”
Economist Jiee Zhong won her PhD from Texas A&M in 2024 and is now an assistant professor of economics at the University of Miami. Last year, she just finished a very impressive study on the effects of grade retention for Texas third graders. Texas abandoned mandatory third-grade retention in 2009.
Zhong studied outcomes of third-graders from 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years who took the Texas reading exam that carried retention consequences. This large data set allowed her to use a fuzzy regression discontinuity design to extract many results. By 2024, the students studied were all young adults over 26 years of age. She was able to evaluate their education, social and economic outcomes using powerful math techniques.
Zhong concluded:
“I find that third-grade retention significantly reduces annual earnings at age 26 by $3,477 (19%). While temporarily improving test scores, retention increases absenteeism, violent behavior, and juvenile crime, and reduces the likelihood of high school graduation.”
For one outcome, she investigated a group of students who barely passed or barely failed the reading test. She learned that the barely failing students earn $1,682 (11.3%) less at age 23 than the barely passing students. Zhong noted that 64.2% of barely passing students graduated from high school while just 55.1% of the barely failing students graduated. She observed that both of these results were statistically significant at a 5% level.
Zhong also noticed a racial disparity. She reports, “White students experience a sharp 43.8 percentage point decline in high school graduation probability, higher than the reductions for Black (17.6 percentage points) and Hispanic students (0.6 percentage points).”
These results from 2025 add more weight to similar results that previous researchers have reported.
The Retention Illusion
In January 2025, Duke University in Chapel Hill, North Carolina published a linked series of three policy briefs concerning grade retention by Claire Xia and Elizabeth Glennie, Ph.D. The Duke researchers stated, “The majority of published studies and decades of research indicate that there is usually little to be gained, and much harm that may be done through retaining students in grade.”
They also mention the grade retention illusion is held by many community members, administrators and teachers who believe grade retention is helpful and needed. The Duke researchers stated, “The findings that retention is ineffective or even harmful in the long run seem counterintuitive.” This belief is so strong that on the 31st Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallop Poll, 72% of the public favor stricter promotion standards even if significantly more students would be held back. Other studies show the public being strongly opposed to social promotion believing low-achieving students will continue to fall farther behind.
Teachers also are susceptible to misunderstanding the effect of grade-retention. Because they only know of the performance of students in the following year, they are blind to the damage being done. The retained students seem to do well the next year and they are unaware of the long-term student trajectories after retention. Therefore, retention often looks successful to many teachers.
Teacher observations of a student’s improved achievement the second time around leads to this erroneous success belief. Xia and Glennie observe:
“These comparisons lead to the false conclusions that children benefit from retention. In contrast, studies comparing the retained student to a similar student who was promoted suggest that retained students would have made just as much or even more progress without retention.”
EdWeek reporter Sarah Schwartz shared that Professor Shane Jimerson of the University of California Santa Barbara published one of the most-cited research papers on grade retention in 2001.
Jimerson performed a meta-analysis of 20 studies published between 1990 and 1999. He concluded that they “fail to demonstrate that grade retention provides greater benefits to students with academic or adjustment difficulties than does promotion to the next grade.” In many studies, students who were retained had worse academic achievement and social-emotional outcomes than students who were not.
I did find one study funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and written by David N. Figlio & Umut Özek that was very positive about Florida’s third-grade retention program. In the abstract Figlio & Özek state:
“We find that retention in the third-grade substantially improves the English skills of these students, reducing the time to proficiency by half and decreasing the likelihood of taking a remedial English course in middle school by one-third. Grade retention also roughly doubles the likelihood of taking an advanced course in math and science in middle school, and more than triples the likelihood of taking college credit-bearing courses in high school for English learners.”
Florida’s retention program required retained students to be given 90-minutes of reading instruction every day during their retained year. It seems that this remediation was successful but couldn’t these students have been passed and given that remediation in 4th grade and in summer school? It would have been better financially for the state and better emotionally for the students.
In a recent post, my friend Nancy Bailey raised a similar idea writing:
“Retention always raises questions about whether children may need more time between kindergarten and third grade to learn, perhaps being pushed to read too soon. What if they hadn’t been retained and had received intensive reading instruction throughout? Fourth grade is not an insignificant year for learning to read better.”
Conclusion
Unfortunately, third-grade retention has become politicized. It is viewed as an essential element of the science of reading which is not scientifically based but does generate profit potential.
Billionaires like John Arnold are adept at making big money, in his case with Enron, but do not understand education. Yet, they continue spending to implement often benighted education policies.
Third-grade retention is another such policy which they do not understand, but their immense wealth too often overrides education common sense.
After taking a deep dive into retention effects, I can find no way to justify it. It is much worse than I imagined and expensive. The Duke policy briefs states:
“It is estimated that nationally 5% to 9% of students are retained every year, translating into over 2.4 million children annually. With an average per pupil expenditure of over $7,500 a year, this common practice of retention costs taxpayers over 18 billion dollars every year.”
What has been widely known since at least the 1990s is that retention is harmful for students. As the title of Nancy Bailey’s post referenced above states, “Grade Retention: The Debate Had Its Day, Now End It!”
tultican 
It’s Gallup, not “Gallop.”
https://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
LikeLike
You presents a more one-sided picture than the research actually supports — and in doing so, makes the same error you accuses policymakers of making: substituting conviction for careful inquiry.
The Figlio & Özek study you cite and then wave away deserves more serious engagement. It is not a think-tank brief — it is a peer-reviewed NBER study examining 40,000 English-learner records using a regression discontinuity design, the same methodology you praise in Zhong’s work. Its findings are striking: retention cut time to English proficiency by half, reduced remedial course-taking in middle school by a third, doubled the likelihood of advanced math and science enrollment, and more than tripled college-credit course-taking in high school. You ask whether those students could have received the same remediation in fourth grade without being retained. That is a fair question — but it is speculation, and the study’s actual findings are not.
Schwerdt, West and Winters, also using Florida data and regression discontinuity methods, found retained students outperformed promoted peers by 0.31 standard deviations in reading over the first three years. Hwang and Koedel, using Indiana data from 2023, found gains of roughly 18 points in ELA and math persisting into seventh grade, consistently across race, income, and gender, with no adverse effects on discipline or attendance.
The honest conclusion the stronger research supports is not “retention works” or “retention doesn’t work” — it is that retention paired with intensive remediation shows meaningful positive effects, while retention without it does not. Florida’s 90-minute daily reading block matters enormously to that finding. That is a nuanced policy argument worth making. What the research does not support is the categorical dismissal your title asserts.
The Jimerson meta-analysis you cite is from 2001 and covers studies from the 1990s. The regression-discontinuity studies of the last decade — methodologically stronger because they compare students just above and just below the cutoff — consistently tell a more complicated story. A piece calling for ongoing scientific inquiry in literacy education should probably grapple with that.
LikeLike
You’re correct that retention with intensive remediation shows positive effects, but what you’re leaving out is that the effects usually don’t last. Possibly why 8th-grade scores haven’t been great in MS.
It doesn’t matter that Jimerson’s research is older. So are many other studies. Most show that intensive work matters, but the effects don’t last. Jimerson is quick to say that neither retention nor ignoring a child’s difficulties is right.
I’ve never worked in a school that ignored a child’s learning problems, not that there aren’t poor schools that don’t do that. Usually, low-scoring students who had low test scores released in the Spring went to summer school.
What I don’t understand is why you and those who cling to retention, as you seem to, would want to crush a kid’s self-belief when there are other, less expensive options. Tom’s picture captures exactly what I saw teaching middle school.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nancy. I have not seen much value in grade retention ever. Most important is to work with the kids you have where there at and help them advance academically and as people. Brian often shares really reformy stuff.
LikeLike