The Risk of Retention
Position Paper from the Early Childhood Psychology Forum
Shefi (Psychological and Counseling Services of the Ministry of Education)
Written by Dr. Tamar Erez.
Participated in the think tank for preparation of this paper:
Ahuva Elitzur, Erez Tamar, Tzipi Chaikin, Miki Migdal, Perla Podcharani, Keren Pardo, Tzipora Shwartz, and Binyamina Shilo.
Background
Retention for an additional year in kindergarten is a procedure that usually isn't considered stigmatic, and it's used with children who for different and various reasons are considered doubtful to succeed in their studies in elementary school or in emotional-social adaptation to school.
The recommendations to retain a child in kindergarten for an additional year were based on professional considerations which relied on the findings of many studies that were published in Israel in the 1970s and 1980s. These studies consistently pointed to the benefits that were seen in children who were retained in contrast to children in the same environment and situations that were not retained (Asa 1975, Ophir 1986, Dory and Berry 1987, Uzi 1980).
The practice of retaining children fits the "maturation" theoretical approach that was prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s. This theory claims that time has a crucial role in determining the rate of development and its course, in a way of, "time will show". It was supported by professionals who warned that exposing the child to formal teaching experiences before its time serves as a source of stress, and this causes damage that has long-terms implications as well (Elkind, 1987).
However, in America in the 1960s began educational interventions that represented the "environmental" approach to development, approaches that stressed the contribution of the environment, training and learning. In the framework of activities to narrow the social gaps, community educational programs for young children were started with the goal of preventing failure at school, such as the Head Start program, and other educational intervention programs for at-risk children. These latter programs stressed the preschool age as a period of opportunity to repair damages and deficits that were created earlier. The ecological approach that focused on interventions in environments and systems that influence the preschool children brought to improvements in academic achievements and social functioning of children from the poverty class.
As such, it's accepted today to think that one shouldn't rely solely on time, and one shouldn't look at the character of the child alone when considering readiness. Without ignoring the role of maturation as a central figure in development, it's accepted among professionals today the explanation that accommodated interventions should be initiated, and the educational environment should be constructed in order to fit the developmental stage of the children, and also to relate to the unique needs (differential) of all of the children. School readiness is thought of also as a property of a community or system (Cohen, 1997) and not of a child alone. From this statement it follows that the child who "isn't ready" isn't in need of additional time for maturation, but rather environmental and educational inputs that will allow him to fully express his abilities and will advance his development in required areas.
The accepted approach today is, if so, to see in his development in every stage a product of ongoing mutual interaction between the individual and his environment. The latest concept proposed today to examine the transition from preschool to formal education is the Dynamic Ecological Model (Rimn-Kaufman, Pianta 2000). This model defines the transition to school in terms of the dynamic qualities of its ecology - the connections of the relationships between the child's characteristics and those of his peers' contexts, the family, the school, and the neighborhood, and how all of these connections develop and change with time. And so, also in relation to readiness for school, a contextual approach should be taken (Cohen A., 1999).
More and more, criticism has begun to be heard against retaining children with arguments such as:
- Retaining children in kindergarten expresses the position that the kindergarten system is that which will prepare the child for school.
- Retaining "frees" the school from system-wide preparation and development of appropriate measures that can assist the children's adaptation and to prevent the need for delaying the transition to first grade.
- Conceptualization of the kindergarten as a "preparatory class" for first grade places on the kindergarten a role that overly targets future scholastic achievements, which is likely to harm the possibility to provide young children life experiences appropriate for their current developmental needs.
- When speaking about children with special educational needs who are in need of ongoing, intensive intervention, the retention is likely to be perceived by the parents as "comfortable"; however, this choice delays their realization in such that their child is in need of personal, accommodated attention over time.
- Studies from the last decade in the United States, propose that children with special needs who remained for an additional year in kindergarten or who were retained in a transitional class between kindergarten and first grade didn't gain any long-term benefit in comparison to children from similar situations who advanced to first grade together with the rest of their peers.
- The children who remain in kindergarten create in their class a difficult ecology of multiple age-classes and increased heterogeneity of students (Meisels 1977).
- The educational psychologists who invest most of their efforts to prevent children who "aren't ready" from entering first grade, are driven by the genetic approach and they contribute to the continuation of the static school concept (Cohen, A. 1987, p 311).
Wouldn't it be better if the psychologists would invest in promotion programs on the one hand, and on the other hand in coordination and continuity between the kindergarten and school? And if these criticisms aren't enough, recent studies on the topic of retention, the majority of which were done in the United States, are beginning to raise more doubts concerning the benefit of it. A portion of the criticisms state that in earlier studies there were serious methodological errors. Cohen N. and Cahan S. (1989) claimed to distinguish between the effects of school age on the development of intelligence. More so, from longitudinal studies disturbing findings have arisen concerning the negative implications of retention, and this is mainly with regard to self concept. This phenomenon is especially profound in adolescence when the building of self identity is considerably influenced by peer comparison (Jimerson SR, 1999).
Is This a Paradigm Change?
The professional literature in psychology and education dedicated in the last decade extensive reviews to the topic of "School Readiness and its Promotion" - the concept, evaluation tools, effective alternatives regarding individual differences in ability, in personal style, and in readiness (The APA Monitor, 1994 vol 25 no 12, Pyschology in the schools 1997, vol 34 no 2).
The High School Division in the American Psychological Association published a position paper on the topic (NASP, 1998) and devoted to it a special booklet of the School Psychology Review (vol 38 no 3, 1999).
All these obligate them as well to renewed evaluation in regards to the issue of the broad implications of the working model of the school psychologist in kindergarten and elementary school. In this evaluation it should be taken into account that the school system has gone through many changes over time and it desires to provide for all of the students (including those with special needs). It invests in professional training in a way that allows identification of individual differences and adjustment of personal teaching methods and as a result of such, there are currently additional effective ways to assist students who are considered as less "ready" - instead of retaining them in kindergarten.
Our Position
In order to give to children the appropriate response on the topic of transition from kindergarten to elementary school, we see retention as one answer from a wide variety of possible measures that are taken into account and the child's characteristics, and similarly the resources of the home and the community to assist him in the educational system in which he learns, and the one in which he is supposed to continue his studies. There are circumstances in which retention is the appropriate solution (details below) and there are others in which retention is not the right solution.
In situations like these it would not be right to say "if it won't help, it won't hurt either". The recommendation for retention in kindergarten needs to be based on a clear definition of the situations in which this is likely to benefit. The educational psychologist is the professional who has the ability to evaluate the child's characteristics and the factors influencing him, a recommendation that considers current knowledge of the chances and dangers of retention. Through the current thinking of the professionals, it's possible to indicate a few situations in which retention is likely to be an appropriate response. And these are (Cohen, A. 1999):
- When dealing with a child (who was born prematurely, has been through a serious illness, etc.) who in a consistent way throughout his early development achieved developmental milestones with a certain delay.
- When dealing with a child exposed to multiple stressors close to the transition time to elementary school for example: moving apartment, a serious illness in the family, immigration, etc.
- When the child has any sort of difficulties that were found and/or brought to the parents' attention only close to the end of the kindergarten year, such that the parents didn't have time to process and receive the recommendations and evaluations for providing special assistance in elementary school.
Many psychologists are convinced that there is an additional group of children that can benefit from retention, and these are children who are young in their class, that are not "emotionally mature"; however, they have no apparent developmental or functional problems.
It seems that research is needed that focuses on this group, and in other defined groups and tests the effectiveness of retention in contrast to other options (such as parent training) for them.
Summary
Today the idea of "retention in kindergarten as an effective way of dealing with a lack of readiness for elementary school..." (Erez, 1989) is only one of the intervention methods used, in certain situations as mentioned above.
On the side of the reduction of the use of retention of children in kindergarten for an additional year, it's important to adopt an accompanying work model, active in progressing development of the child in kindergarten and in the first years of elementary school. The guiding lines for this model were outlined over twenty years ago (Esther Cohen, 1997).
- Training kindergarten teachers in child observation, identifying their academic talents, and social development, and in adjusting educational and instructional strategies to their personal needs.
- Supervision, counseling, and training by psychologists for parents and kindergarten teachers throughout the stay in the early childhood system (kindergarten, 1st grade, 2nd grade).
- Preparing the school system for differential instruction in elementary school.
- Preparing and ensuring support services for kindergarten and first grade.
- Emphasis on the continuing educational process in the transition from kindergarten to elementary school with cooperation and coordination between the systems.
In a paper by the NASP, methods and means that proved their effectiveness in the United States were numbered:
- Increased parental involvement in the education of their children in kindergarten and elementary school.
- Use of age appropriate instructional methods
- Grouping of more than one age group in classes where the teachers have received training in working with heterogeneous groups in age and abilities.
- Bringing in effective programs for early reading instruction (for example: Success for All)
- Brining in effective prevention programs in the field of mental health (for example: The Primary Mental Health Project).
- Participation in long day learning and extended year programs
- Participation in tutoring programs (by peers, older students, adults)
- Schools that provide community services in the area of education but also welfare and mental health services for at risk populations (Holtzman 1992) and also a position paper by the American Psychological Association on the topic of integrative services
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Special thanks to Dr. Esther Cohen on her assistance, good advice, and comments, and that she was a source of renewed thought on this topic throughout the years.