“Creating the sense of urgency as the impetus for systems change is really an interesting motivator, especially as we think about this against our most recent experience and context – we and the whole system, we’re adapting in the midst of a crisis.”

Gloria Corral of the Parent Institute for Quality Education (PIQE) offered the above reflection on the purpose of third-grade retention policies as she moderated this GLR Learning Tuesdays session, Third-Grade Retention: A Conversation About Adult Accountability and Student Outcomes, exploring recent state-level policy shifts around student retention.

Amber Arellano, MPP, of The Education Trust-Midwest described the policy shifts in Michigan. “I think that the theory of action was that there was a lack of urgency around change, and not a lack of expertise, or capacity, or other challenges. And so, because of that, the legislation was passed but there was not an accompanying comprehensive statewide strategic plan…about things like delivery systems for professional development, things like how to inform and engage families and parents around the new policy, tutoring programs, extended learning— just the whole spectrum of the kinds of strategies that could work to really boost reading outcomes.” As a result, “many people felt that the retention piece was a punishment to them, because they didn’t have the capacity, in some cases the expertise either, but often the capacity that they felt like they needed to be able to rise to this occasion and rise to the demands of the new law.” Without this structure in place, Michigan didn’t see statewide or even county-wide gains and the student retention part of the policy was repealed.

Meanwhile in Mississippi, the policy was much more effective, and students showed gains. For Kymyona Burk, Ed.D., of ExcelinEd, the important thing Mississippi did was to develop a model. Burk explained with this example, “This is how we were going to implement coaching, and this is how we would do it — every time. We would get the feedback, we would look at the data, we would see if it was being effective, and if it was, then we were going to continue those practices.”

Why are some states seeing success and others aren’t? Marcus Winters, Ph.D., of Boston University explained, “It’s important to understand that there’s really large variation in these programs, the rules under which these programs operate, and how they’re implemented….There’s also variation in the interventions that come with retention.” Later he added, “It definitely really has a lot to do with the context.” Erika Berry of TennesseeCAN explained the context in her state: “It is difficult at the moment to determine how Tennessee’s third-grade retention policy will impact student learning. There is good news in how it has changed human behavior. But preliminary estimates for the previous school year showed that 67% of third-graders went on to fourth grade not reading on grade level….So I’m hopeful but also concerned.”

Patrick Lyons of the National Conference of State Legislatures described third-grade retention as another tool in the tool bag of legislators to solve the literacy problem. Panelists also made recommendations around:

• A commitment to delivery of support and services
• Data collection and prevention prior to third grade
• Adolescent literacy interventions

All the panelists acknowledged a literacy problem in the country that needs to be addressed despite divergent experiences and evidence associated with third-grade retention laws. Burk reflected on how some might think that we shouldn’t have to have a law about retention:, “The truth is we have to. This is the accountability piece.”